In response to:

The Complex Truth About the Second Amendment

mocus Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:44 AM
A constitutional right can be validly infringed only to the extent that it conflicts with some other constitutional right or duty, sort of like the swinging fist and nose analogy. Denying the right to bear arms to those under constitutional restraint is valid because to allow otherwise would potentially defeat that restraint. It would also be valid in the interests of public safety to deny this right to young children, mental defectives, and others shown to be lacking the judgment to safely exercise it. There can be other reasons to limit constitutional rights, but they should always be because of direct conflict with some other constitutional right.
dahni Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 10:57 AM
You need to check out some o the 'constitutional restraints' being imposed by the Obama-ists. Confiscation of all arms is needed by Obama in the interest of public safety.

The debate on gun control lately has been going like this: Liberals propose various restrictions on allowable firearms, acceptable owners and approved ammunition. Conservatives exclaim, "Second Amendment!" And the debate, at least in the mind of the latter group, is over.

The Second Amendment, they believe, is not just one important provision of our basic government document. It's the first and last word on the subject of firearms.

Viewing the proposals offered since the Sandy Hook massacre, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concludes the supporters intend "to completely GUT our Second Amendment rights." The Utah Sheriffs' Association warned President Barack...