Sunday, December 20, 2009

The Des Moines Register Doesn't Get It Again:Gun Rights are a natural right, not a states right

While they were on a roll, The Des Moines Register decided to take another swipe at the Right with an article "New Push by NRA in Iowa creates Firefight".   The author quotes some alleged gun rights people as being against the measures proposed by the NRA, which are to allow people that are legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon to be allowed to have guns stored in their cars at work or in a locker at work. The author continues and says that this violates a sheriffs discretion. First off, Iowa is not a shall issue state and in spite of the second amendment being a federal constitutional amendment, we have counties here where the sheriffs deny anyone a pistol license. As far as I am concerned, all states should be shall issue, which means that as long as a person is not a convicted felon or had spent time in a mental institution, they should be allowed to get a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Saying this violates property rights is a little bit of a red herring. Governments have no problem violating property rights with eminent domain, often arbitrarily and with disproportionate compensation. I have yet to see The Des Moines Register or any other rag come out against Eminent Domain, even in the cases where the property wasn't for development by the government, but by private companies. With the continuation of laws that are passed to restrict gun ownership and exercising that right, there is going to be push back. In my state, even people that are lawfully allowed to carry a concealed weapon cannot do so within 1000' of a school or government property. How does this make anyone safer? Someone intent on using a firearm illegally will disregard the law and those who follow it will be their mercy and be a victim. It is my assertion that the anti-gun crowd wish to create more victims as a way to crete fervor against gun ownership.

The Des Moines Register is just another left wing rag that is pro-socialist, pro-big government, and pro-abortion. While the article tries to pepper itself with quotes against the bill from gun rights people, I would bet most gun rights people want both Iowa to be a Shall Issue state and that we should be allowed to carry our firearms anywhere we are welcome. Let me ask you this: Should free speech be interpreted to be only in suitable places? What about the practice of religion? What about the right to be secure in our persons? All these rights the Left champions even to the extent with religion to give religious status to beliefs that are not religion, but when it comes to a constitutional right as to keep and bear arms, they are silent. Where do you stand?

Thank you for reading this blog.


Teresa said...

I think that the right to bear arms is a natural right. I believe that every state should be a shall issue state. The rules only harm the people who are willing to abide by the rules. The criminals are not going to follow the laws so the laws are going to enable the criminal to hurt or kill the people who follow the rules.

The Right Guy said...

Absolutely. And I will always fight for all natural rights, and that is my point. While the left and the ACLU will fight for most, they skip on gun rights. Too bad. They'd have a lot more money coming in if they did, not to mention safer streets.

Ran said...

Weapons ownership is not a constitutional right... it is a Natural Right provided by our Creator, thus a constitutionally protected right.

I'm not trying to be picky. The Left asserts that our rights emanate from the Constitution. It is toxic and misleading.

The founding fathers were clear: Rights are God-given, and it is the Constitution's role to protect those rights.

The Right Guy said...

Yes, it is a natural right, which is not from the constitution, but enumerated their for all to see and to protect it. On the other hand, if people believed it were a natural right, than why do we need the supreme court to define it's limits? Same with all the other rights enumerated in the constitution. Our founders left too much up to the discretion of courts and legislators. In that case it could be agued that they are indeed defined by the constitution. I am with you as far as natural rights go, as given by our creator, but it hasn't worked out that way in praxis.

Snarky Basterd said...

I'm of the opinion that even the need to have a "license" to carry concealed is, yeah, piss on this feeble newspaper.

The Right Guy said...

Unfortunately, the states can regulate this and in some cases outlaw it. THe supreme court has really screwed up on this.

Susannah said...

Gun control is the g'ment sucking up power from the people. It isn't about safety as they would have us believe - criminals don't use legal, registered firearms. It's about controlling the people. I've copied the 'ask the experts' pic. I'll link it to you. Great piece!

Keep up the good work!

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails