This is the kind of person who should not own a gun, let alone be in the military or be hired for any kind of law enforcement.
That he was hired for those at all is a clear indication of a seriously deranged culture in both.
This is the kind of person who should not own a gun, let alone be in the military or be hired for any kind of law enforcement.
That he was hired for those at all is a clear indication of a seriously deranged culture in both.
If you press a US “second amendment enthusiast” about gun reform, at one point they will inevitably reply angrily with something like “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”
There are other parts of the Bill of Rights that, while written in an absolute manner, have been found to have some limits. The First Amendment is rather demonstrative that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. Yet, we recognize limits on speech, the most famous one being yelling “fire” in a theater (when there is none) Yes, you have the right to speech, but if your speech unnecessarily created panic the government can punish you on that basis.
It seems quite clear to me that gun ownership here, even with the 2nd amendment, should come with responsibilities too. Gun owners still have a moral duty to be responsible about it, and not just carelessly put others in danger. Yet, the 2nd Amendment is presented as an absolute, with no strings attached, as if God sent them Himself on stone tablets. It’s like the 2nd Amendment is the only one that matters…
Just the fact that the FCC can issue fines for “bad” language on broadcasts has always perplexed me about the 1st.