(Some of the following I have covered in other posts. However, I believe they
are worth repeating, for the Benefit of those who are new readers.)
Let us TRY TO IGNORE THE RHETORIC, SOUND BITES, AND
OTHER MEANINGLESS CLAPTRAP BEING SPREAD ACROSS
THE AIRWAVES AND THE INTERNET, AND APPROACH THIS WITH
MATURITY AND RATIONAL THOUGHT, WITH THE IDEA TO DO WHAT
IS RIGHT AND GOOD FOR THE U.S., THE WORLD, AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Question #1- Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups
that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?
Question #2- Previous Judicial Decisions, and Legislative Actions have set
Limits, as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSABLE and COVERED BY THE
BILL OF RIGHTS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH- DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING
WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM
OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR
FREEDOM OF RELIGION- DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL
ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE
EMPLOYMENT SECTOR....AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED
BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
So if we ACCEPT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE,
BUT ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD,
WHY WOULD THE 2ND AMENDMENT BE EXEMPT?
Question #3- Given the Stated GOALS AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH BY
THE PRESIDENT IN HIS SPEECH, TO HELP REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE, WHY
WOULD YOU CONCLUDE THAT:
- THEY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, OR WILL NOT
PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?
- THEY PRESENT AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN
ON THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER?
- IT PUNISHES HONEST GUN OWNERS , INSTEAD OF
REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY
TO BE CONTINUED...