Gun Fanatics Express Their Support For a Mass Murderer’s Second Amendment Rights

[badtoworse]

150. Let's deal with fundamentals first.

With respect to civil rights, those are things that the government does not have the power to just take away. Civil rights are not things that the constitution (or the government) has granted to the citizens and the Bill of Rights is not a document the defines rights that the citizens (and the states) have. Instead it is a document that defines things that the federal government cannot do. It might not seem to make much difference, but the difference is actually profound. It defines who has the responsibility to demonstrate whether civil should be be granted or whether they can be taken away. Your question about keeping unstable people away from guns goes to the heart of that issue. Does the citizen need to prove that they are entitled to exercise their civil right or does the government need to prove that the civil right should be taken away?

Personally, I'm not willing concede anything on this point. It goes beyond the 2nd Amendment and it's too important. If you allow that standard to be diluted for the 2nd Amendment, it makes it easier for the government to make it more difficult to exercise any of our other enumerated rights. As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, that means that the government should have to demonstrate that you are mentally or otherwise not fit to own a firearm based on what is in the public record. It also means that I won't accept having to be examined and deemed competent to own a firearm - that puts the onus on me to demonstrate that I'm entitled to exercise my civil rights. I know that means that people like Rodger can more easily slip through and get a gun, but to me, that is a "cure worse than the disease" scenario. Sorry, but our government has demonstrated time and again that it should not be trusted with that much power.

The preceding is a big deal, but so is your point about insurance. Driving on a public road is not a right; it's a privilege and the standards for privileges are very different. The government has the power to specify what you need to do in order to gain a privilege, such as driving. It can require you to take a road test and have insurance in order to drive on a public road. Not true for rights. That does not mean that you're not responsible if you're negligent with a firearm. You can certainly be sued if you are. In my view, it means the government does not have the power to require insurance before you can exercise your rights.

In the end, I think our differences are about government powers. You seem to be comfortable giving the government powers that it does not currently have, but I am not. We will need to find solutions that work within the currently defined limits on government power. I'm not comfortable with the amount of power the government has accumulated now and I'm unwilling to give it any more.