Posted on 02/19/2018 3:28:57 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
To understand the American gun-control debate, you have to understand the fundamentally different starting positions of the two sides. Among conservatives, there is the broad belief that the right to own a weapon for self-defense is every bit as inherent and unalienable as the right to speak freely or practice your religion. It’s a co-equal liberty in the Bill of Rights, grounded not just in the minds of the Founders but in natural law.
Against this backdrop, most forms of gun control proposed after each mass killing represent a collective punishment. The rights of the law-abiding are restricted with no real evidence that these alleged “common sense” reforms will prevent future tragedies in any meaningful way.
Many progressives, however, simply don’t care about restrictions on gun ownership. They don’t view it as an individual right, much less an unalienable one. To them, the Second Amendment is an embarrassment, an American quirk that should be limited and confined as much as possible. To them, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, and can be heavily regulated and restricted without doing any violence at all to individual liberty.
To describe these differences is not to say that the two sides never meet. Putting aside the relatively meaningless polls about various gun-control measures — the polls that truly matter are at the ballot box, and there the results are very clear and very distinct for both red and blue — there is broad conceptual agreement that regardless of whether you view gun ownership as a right or a privilege, a person can demonstrate through their conduct that they have no business possessing a weapon.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
BS. Camels nose under the tent flap.
It will be abused by estranged spouses in divorce or child custody proceedings, smearing the party against whom it is issued. Every judge will err on the side of issuing the order rather than denying it on the merits.
Not very nuanced or hoighty toighty.
Exactly.
Why should we consider this measure when we have already HAD "moderate" measures in the past, and even have cities with more draconian measures, yet NONE of them have reduced violent crime?
Conservatives don't oppose to 2nd Amendment infringements just because they're unconstitutional, though that's certainly reason enough, but also because they objectively and empirically don't work!
From the piece.....a belief it’s an inherint right...... Uh, yeah but it’s more than a “belief”.
IT. IS. A. RIGHT. ASSHOLES.
The whole point of the “temporary restraining” order was Obama’s law allowing the government to take your guns if you went in for psychiatric counseling.
The law was rightly revoked.
Get enough progressives in your family and you’ll find your rights stripped as they blackmail you just as they would for any other reason.
No - this entire concept is BS, wouldn’t have stopped this shooting anyway and the government already has the right to stop imminent threats when people say something. That is, if the government actually does its job!
Maybe, just maybe as Americans, we have to learn to stop reacting to this emotional, irrational, cry-baby hysteria and actually work on things like our overcrowded cities, overstressed governmental systems (both thanks to illegal immigration and poor governance to begin with).
Naah, naaah... it feels better to yell and scream and get your way.
Would a GVRO never be invoked by a vindictive spouse? Really? And if someone truly snaps, would a restraining order really deter them? Enforcement mechanism would be...police? NICS?
Here’s a measure we should consider: REPEAL.
Repeal the National Firearms Act.
Repeal the Gun Control Act.
Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
REPEAL THE GUN FREE SCHOOLS ACT.
Anybody yappin’ about additional gun control laws can STFU. Talk to the hand, ‘cause I’M NOT LISTENING. I’m tired of lies from would-be tyrants.
FOAD, NRO. FOAD.
Just think about how judge shopping has worked with Trump’s travel ban. Find a lefty judge who will issue a baseless order.
As expected from this French clown, no mention of liability for the accuser in the case of malicious claims.
At the risk of going conspiracy theory - our handling of criminal behavior in schools is part of the problem. You break the law, you go to jail. You don’t get a stern warning and a diversion program. Cops gotta do their jobs. Schools are not cops and are not courts.
We can institute a 72 hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion. Then we can allow family members or people living with the woman to seek a fetus violence restraining order to allow others to intervene.
We can also allow the government to seek a news story restraining order when they believe that the newspaper is being irresponsible.
Why do we not allow "reasonable restrictions" on other "rights", but see this as not a problem with the 2nd Amendment ("shall not be infringed.)
Not really worthy of comment.
Agreed. David French is a poser. He is thoroughly in league with the enemy, as he has amply demonstrated on more than one occasion. A pseudo intellectual, French is beyond stupid.
With friends like him, ...
Nobody should just feel that they can just stroll into anywhere and just kill people without believing that they will feel miserably AND die pointlessly!
No politician should feel this same way about taking our guns away either.
We let this happen.
I’d consider metal detectors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.