Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court looks to medieval England in gun rights case
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3666842" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>With rights come responsibilities. Where rights are restricted, responsibilities are transferred to the restricting authority. But SCOTUS has always said these "authorities" aren't responsible for the safety of individual citizens, regardless of the venue or restrictions in place.</p><p></p><p>This is the core component for every friction we have with every asserting authority regarding the 2nd Amendment. They want to restrict the rights, but they refuse to assume the responsibility. Simply put, in every place they restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, then they MUST assume responsibility for our safety. If they fail, then they must NOT be indemnified from liability. I can't carry "here"? Fine, then you're responsible for my personal security and if you fail, then you're civilly liable for what happens to me that could've possibly been prevented by me, had my rights not been restricted.</p><p></p><p>If you put these requirements in place, the number of "sensitive places" will mostly shrink to jails, courts, and of course the offices of senior public officials.</p><p></p><p>As for considering foreign documents, about the only thing I know I'm good with them using to base our lows on, is the Magna Carta.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3666842, member: 1132"] With rights come responsibilities. Where rights are restricted, responsibilities are transferred to the restricting authority. But SCOTUS has always said these "authorities" aren't responsible for the safety of individual citizens, regardless of the venue or restrictions in place. This is the core component for every friction we have with every asserting authority regarding the 2nd Amendment. They want to restrict the rights, but they refuse to assume the responsibility. Simply put, in every place they restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, then they MUST assume responsibility for our safety. If they fail, then they must NOT be indemnified from liability. I can't carry "here"? Fine, then you're responsible for my personal security and if you fail, then you're civilly liable for what happens to me that could've possibly been prevented by me, had my rights not been restricted. If you put these requirements in place, the number of "sensitive places" will mostly shrink to jails, courts, and of course the offices of senior public officials. As for considering foreign documents, about the only thing I know I'm good with them using to base our lows on, is the Magna Carta. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court looks to medieval England in gun rights case
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom