The concept of property rights vs. the right to bear arms was mentioned above. Perhaps property should be broken down into domicile and non-domicile property.
I'd agree and would politically support the proposition that the owner of a domicile has a right to demand that anyone entering that domicile or upon the property where his domicile is located not carry a weapon. In other words, I think a mans home is his castle. However, I think his business property or any other property is, or should be another matter entirely.
IMHO, no individual, business entity, or govenmental body (or quasi-governmental body) should be permitted to arbitrarily deny an individuals Constitutional rights under the 2nd admendment, except on an individuals domicile.
In all other cases, it should be made a felony to threaten someones job, or their right to pursue an education just because they dare to excercise a constitutionally guaranteed right on private business property (or on a college campus for that matter).
We, as Second Amendment supporters, are forever on the defensive because the founding fathers did not forsee that we would ever live in a world where the meaning of the word "is" was questionable; or the meaning of the words "the right to keep and bear arms".
The result has been that those with the sophistry to parse words and come up with a supposed meaning for the words "the right to keep and bear arms" other than the meaning those words were clearly intended to connote by the founding fathers, have in effect stolen a constitutional right from the people under the guise of law. Then, when those "laws" are overturned by the Courts (after long legal fights just to reclaim rights that are clearly enumerated in the Constitution and its adopted amendments) the people who stole the rights don't go to jail for their affrontery to the constitution. No sir, they go right back out and set up new obstacles. These are truly dangerous people, and the average citizen of this nation needs protection from them.
We should make an all out effort to elect to office only those persons who are committed to introducing and fighting for legislation that will criminalize the acts of those who deny citizens their 2nd Amendment rights under the guise of law.
An excellent example of what is wrong is the tragic lesson of Virginia Tech, where the university authorities denied the law-abiding among their students the right to carry a weapon on their campus. I and many others believe that this constituted denying American citizens rights guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Having done this (which first of all they should not have done) these authorities should have at least then protected the law abiding from the non-law abiding by employing stringent security measures similar to the electronic screening procedures used by Virginias county courthouses. But they did not. Thus the actions of the schools authorities created an environment that allowed a deranged gunman to murder many law-abiding students like they were so many sheep for the slaughter. Now all the world knows it can happen. Shouldn't authorities who make similar mistakes in the future be held criminally responsible for such acts? Should they not be liable also for heavy civil damages? I think so. I believe that such people should be criminalized. Then let them do the hoping that Supreme Court votes go their way.
I'd agree and would politically support the proposition that the owner of a domicile has a right to demand that anyone entering that domicile or upon the property where his domicile is located not carry a weapon. In other words, I think a mans home is his castle. However, I think his business property or any other property is, or should be another matter entirely.
IMHO, no individual, business entity, or govenmental body (or quasi-governmental body) should be permitted to arbitrarily deny an individuals Constitutional rights under the 2nd admendment, except on an individuals domicile.
In all other cases, it should be made a felony to threaten someones job, or their right to pursue an education just because they dare to excercise a constitutionally guaranteed right on private business property (or on a college campus for that matter).
We, as Second Amendment supporters, are forever on the defensive because the founding fathers did not forsee that we would ever live in a world where the meaning of the word "is" was questionable; or the meaning of the words "the right to keep and bear arms".
The result has been that those with the sophistry to parse words and come up with a supposed meaning for the words "the right to keep and bear arms" other than the meaning those words were clearly intended to connote by the founding fathers, have in effect stolen a constitutional right from the people under the guise of law. Then, when those "laws" are overturned by the Courts (after long legal fights just to reclaim rights that are clearly enumerated in the Constitution and its adopted amendments) the people who stole the rights don't go to jail for their affrontery to the constitution. No sir, they go right back out and set up new obstacles. These are truly dangerous people, and the average citizen of this nation needs protection from them.
We should make an all out effort to elect to office only those persons who are committed to introducing and fighting for legislation that will criminalize the acts of those who deny citizens their 2nd Amendment rights under the guise of law.
An excellent example of what is wrong is the tragic lesson of Virginia Tech, where the university authorities denied the law-abiding among their students the right to carry a weapon on their campus. I and many others believe that this constituted denying American citizens rights guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Having done this (which first of all they should not have done) these authorities should have at least then protected the law abiding from the non-law abiding by employing stringent security measures similar to the electronic screening procedures used by Virginias county courthouses. But they did not. Thus the actions of the schools authorities created an environment that allowed a deranged gunman to murder many law-abiding students like they were so many sheep for the slaughter. Now all the world knows it can happen. Shouldn't authorities who make similar mistakes in the future be held criminally responsible for such acts? Should they not be liable also for heavy civil damages? I think so. I believe that such people should be criminalized. Then let them do the hoping that Supreme Court votes go their way.