Posted on 02/11/2013 11:29:10 PM PST by neverdem
Emboldened by Obama's easy re-election despite a radical first term, liberals are finally removing the mask of moderation and talking openly about abandoning the Constitution altogether -- or, at a minimum, amending it to include what they call positive rights...
--snip--
If citizens have a positive right to government-provided health care, free contraceptives, and a guaranteed income, do we not also have a positive right to self-defense?
Let's make the question more real and less theoretical. Does a woman driving home from work late at night have a positive right to carry a concealed handgun in order to defend herself against potential carjackers and rapists? The negative language of the current Second Amendment says that government shall not infringe upon her right to purchase and carry a firearm, if she chooses to do so. But what if the woman cannot afford a firearm, or what if she chooses to spend her resources on other priorities? Would a positive right obligate the government to provide her with a free firearm to carry next to her free contraceptives and her national health care card?
Absurd as these questions may sound at first, it would be worth the price of admission to hear liberals forced to take the position that one citizen should not be obligated to buy something against his will for another citizen. Besides, the questions above are simply logical extensions of the left's implied position that, if something is good, government should ensure that we have it.
How could liberals handle a question about a positive right to self-defense? They could claim that there is no such right, in which case they would have to explain why they omit this one right amidst their long list of new ones. Or they can argue that there is such a right...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The premise here is that one can have a discussion based on logic with a liberal.
Can one have a discussion based on logic with a zombie? with a mental defective?
A positive right?
NO, it is a Constitutional requirement:
A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY to the security of a free State...
It is necessary, it is a requirement, not just a mere right.
Any competent citizen should be required to own and know how to use a firearm.
Ping
You only have FULL rights if you’re a member of ROYALTY.
Behave serfs! And do as you’re told!
Uhmmmm.....is there a negative right that reduces my right?
Let’s put it this way. If there is a “right” to an abortion, then there is damn well a right to own firearms.
Nowhere does it state the forme, but It specifically says so in the case of the latter.
Jesus told His 12 Disciples to get Weapons [Swords] for Self-Protection.
At the end of His Last Supper with them – the day before His crucifixion - Jesus told the disciples to carry a weapon for self-defense. Two of the disciples were already carrying swords that evening. He knew that in the future there would be threats against their safety so he wanted them to be visibly “armed.”
Luke 22: 35-38 - NKJV
Supplies for Ministry:
35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ “For the things concerning Me have an end.”
38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
Semantics and double-talk - Lefties love ‘em.
Traditionalists understand, of course, that these are simply two fancy terms for old fashioned bullsh*t.
ding...ding...ding...
i seem to recall that the citizenry were subject to fines if they didnt provide their own weapons and ammo...and that if a person was in real financial straights, that there was provision to equip them out of the *collective* resources...
not to mention requirements to arrive armed to townhalls and church services etc...
make the progcomms argue that...
LOL! 'Positive' rights would mean there would also have to be a converse type of right, or a 'negative' right.
Since their isn't, we must conclude the libs are again trying to reframe the argument so it can only lead to their preferred conclusion.
------
The right to self-defence is a Natural Law right...and it drives the libs crazy that the government has NO ability to alter natural Law.
Do you really want to force the idiots that voted for obama to own a gun?
I know, you did say competent.
Exactly.
He who defines the language and frames the debate wins.
It's time to stop playing defense only.
Nope.
I know, you did say competent.
Yes, and that is precisely why.
In addition to those who are manifestly incompetent and are denied ownership, anyone who is a liberal or has a violent psychological reaction to firearms can register themselves as incompetent to avoid the weapon ownership requirement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.