Via Sharp as a Marble we have a post on Walls of the City. It’s a list of different laws that would be on the books if other rights were shit all over as much as the second amendment. Here are some gems:
Anyone convicted of a felony or convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse or assault is not allowed freedom of speech or religion and must rely on the government to provide speech and religion for them.
(1968 gun control act)
Many people in the gun rights community don’t like to touch this particular law. It’s probably due to the fact that nobody wants to be seen as supporting felons or people who abused their spouse. Personally I’m against either restriction and I’ll tell you why.
If you are worried a person who committed a heinous crime (well not just heinous crimes are felonies anymore, practically everything is becoming one) is going to commit an act of violence why the Hell is he out of prison? A huge majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders which seems to imply somebody who has already committed a crime is more than willing to break another law (obtaining a gun while being a felon) to assist in a repeat offense.
Than you have those charged with domestic violence. If you’ve ever known somebody accused of domestic abuse you know the situation is probably anything but cut and dry. I have friends who have been accused by their significant other of physical abuse. Personally I refuse to take sides in such an argument but I can say the situation is dicey and the truth is usually impossible to drill down to. The fact that somebody can have their rights ripped away from them without absolute cut and dry evidence is a slippery slope to say the least.
But the bottom line is I’m against stripping anybody of any civil right.
Before engaging in new free speech you must pass an instant background check by a government authorized free speech dealer. Sorry, if your name is like someone else prohibited from speech and religion, it is up to you to prove you’re not that person.
(NICS instant background check and Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993)
Sounds pretty stupid when applied to free speech doesn’t it? How about to a right of trial by jury? Maybe you should be required to go through an instant background check before you have the right to not have your property searched without an issued warrant.
Any religions, peaceable assemblies, camera, computer, telephone or free speech enabling device made before 1986 is available to use by the general public. Any made after 1986 is only available to law enforcement.
(Closing of the NFA machine gun registry in 1986 by Regan with the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act)
Pretty straight forward. Once against sounds rather unreasonable when applied to religion and free speech.
Of course some gun control zealot will spew out a river of bullshit claiming you can’t compare the second amendment to any other amendment. This of course implies that the founding fathers of this country meant what they said with every right listed in the Bill of Rights except the second item posted. Seems odd that they would have made a random exception without noting it anywhere.
2 thoughts on “The Second Amendment is Different From Other Rights”
I have no problem with the no guns for felon law. What I have a problem with is the fact that EVERYTHING is now categorized as a felony. Felonies should just be those predatorial crimes (rape, murder, robbery, etc)
It’s always funny because my friends will say, “Our society has advanced so far. They used to simply hang people for felonies.” My response is usually, “Yeah but a felony used to be a major crime.”
It’s sickening how everything is becoming a felony these days.
Comments are closed.