Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy
I want to know why Obama is wants to take away Assault Rifles.
...
The Constitution says right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed!
|
The immediate response anyone gets when this is brought up is "laws against Assault Rifles does not infringe on a person's right to own a firearm for their own protection or for sport."
First, let me state that I'm 100% in favor of people that pass a thorough background check and are of sound mind being allowed to own a firearm.
Here's an ironic comparison. Many of the same people that want to lock up the pothead because pot makes him happy, don't want their Assault Rifles taken away. The Constitution also says the pothead has the right to pursue happiness. If weed is the only thing that makes him happy, and he's arrested for possessing weed, isn't that an infringement on his Constitutional Right to pursue happiness?
No. It is not.
Regardless of my position on drug policy (and I really don't want this thread to deviate as I used it only as an example), that pothead's avenue for the pursuit of happiness is restricted for the public's best interest. The government's opinion is that those actions will infringe on the rights of others and public safety.
This is easily transferred to "Assault Rifles." The Right to Bear Arms gives every citizen the right to possess a firearm. It does not state that it gives every citizen the right to possess any type of firearm they choose. Restrictions of ownership are put into place to protect the general populace.
Threaded Mode