Regulating Rights

[rebAL]

Do you think our rights as define in our constitution should be all inclusive or do you think their needs to be some controls, restrictions, &/or regulations to prevent their mis-use by perverts, psychos, felons, etc. ?  Do you think our rights could actually  be protected by such regulations, restrictions, & controls?  I ask this question not only as it pertains to our second amendment, but to all our constitutional rights. 

[Leatherstocking]

Without some form of regulation there would be chaos and anarchy, the human being what he is. I believe you and I have a right to travel safely in a car. If there were no control, restriction, or regulation with regard to speed limit, would you get onto a road?

After I wrote that, I re-read your post and realized that you specified "rights as defined in our constitution". I'll have to give that more thought, but I think I'll probably find the analogy I made above may apply.

[rebAL]

I've been giving this a lot of thought over the past few years.  With respect to some people's  views on the NRA selling us out, what seems like a sell out could also be viewed by others as making our rights in fact more secure by preventing their abuse by criminals, whackos, etc.  This can also be applied to yelling fire in a crowded building, clearly a constitutional right to free speech but can be abused by whackos:  Or warrantless wire taps used to catch terrorists.  It seems that all of our constitutional rights need to be regulated not only for the good of society, but also to secure the rights from being enirely revoked.

[FLNT4EVR]

You can't allow someone to regulate your rights. As soon as you do you will find that people with influence , money, or friends in high places, are more equal than you are , and their rights are protected while yours are not.  Some people will be more equal than others.

[Graybeard]

If RIGHTS are regulated or limited then the cease to be rights and are lowered in status to mere privildeges granted to you by the government.

ALL RIGHTS belong to the citizenry and we give up to government only very limited and narrowly defined authority in the US Constituion. Now government is stealing from us what is our natural rights and trying to convince us it's for our own good that they dole these out to us on a limited basis to protect us.

I don't want or need the government to protect me from anything other than invasion by other countries and that one duty they are not performing and in fact are actually complicite in allowing them to invade us.

[torpedoman]

lets define reasonable limits ,I think your rights to bear arms should be limited to flintlocks, there that preserves your "rights" to bear arms while protecting against mass killings. Is'nt that a "reasonable " solution.Oh don't like that one how about we allow only cap and ball or single shot cartridge rifles, and ONLY rifles no pistols, think this is reasonable? The point is you dont want any government deciding what is or isnt reasonable because all these ideas are "reasonable" to someone.

[Leatherstocking]

I love these kind of thought provoking discussions . It's what makes this country great. What did we ever do before the internet and Graybeard Outdoors?!

[KAYR1]

I think that we, as gun-owning, law abiding citizens should stop being systematically divided and conquerered. The Class III guys need to stand with the 5-stand shooters, need to stand with the hunters, and recreational plinkers.  We are all gun owners, and love our respective sports.

What other limitations to Constitutional freedoms would we willing to comprimise on?  Free speech? Freedom of Religion?  the list goes on, but, to me and many of you gun ownership is no less a right, and no comprimises or limitations should be accepted.