Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alberta's Child

My point was all or nothing rather than the current approach. If a person is a ward of the state to the point where the state has to provide housing, electricity and other basic needs, then that person is defacto, no longer a citizen in the purest sense of the word. Wards of the state have their rights stripped from them. Citizens retain their rights. If they are a citizen, then the 1st, 2nd and all other rights are retained by the citizen.

I am convinced that the current mentality of rights for me but not for thee is going to lead to a civil war. It needs to be fixed and asap.


25 posted on 03/17/2018 10:45:47 AM PDT by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: taxcontrol
I would have no objection to your approach, but in this particular case the "current approach" is actually sound on principle.

A person has a right to keep and bear arms, but that right can easily be abrogated on a VOLUNTARY basis when that person agrees to enter a certain premises where firearms are not allowed.

The operator of a sports arena, for example, does not violate anyone's constitutional rights when it refuses to allow fans to carry firearms inside. Anyone who doesn't want to meet those requirements is free to stay away.

This is EXACTLY why the Founders of this country had no illusions about extending all the rights of citizenship to everyone who could breathe on a mirror. If you didn't own property, you were considered a second-class citizen. Period.

26 posted on 03/17/2018 11:12:39 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson