Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan
All rights are not absolute
The right to own a handgun is stronger than the right to own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine - the weaker the right the less justification required to regulate the right - it is a balancing test to be determined by both those who enact a statute or regulation and the judiciary that determines whether the action is constitutional - IMO that is what the thread is about, without muddying the waters with rhetoric about "the nanny state" and doing what "massa" tells us to do
Not every action opposed by the proponents of smaller government is unconstitutional - sometimes you have to win elections by broadening your base if you want your agenda to prevail
I'm not so sure about that. I'm a Hobbesian in this regard. Even rabid monarchists like him agreed that your obligation to preserving your own life is your supreme right and obligation. It is an absolute right. I suggest that in this case preserving my life and the lives of my fellow humans comes before my right to pack heat. That's about it.
I have to object strenuously to this idea suggested by Mom, Killer and others that the powers that be would love for us to be unarmed sheeple. I'm certain it's quite to the contrary. They obtain clear, tangible benefits from nurturing a hyper-masculine and aggressive society that is at the same time constantly stuck at 11 on the fear-o-meter. The guns secure both goals quite efficiently.