diflucan bad for liver

A Right with Limitations

Via Random Nuclear Strikes, we find this Seattle Times editorial concerned with recent shootings of police officers:

A constitutional right to own a gun does not carry a subsequent right to put others at risk, or to amass a personal armory with a lethal capacity beyond some hypothetical need for household defense.

Got that? The Seattle Times editorial staff thinks that A) household defense is “some hypothetical need” and B) the right guaranteed legally by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution should be limited to the absolute bare minimum for personal safety.

I wonder if they believe that other “constitutional rights” should be so severely limited. Say, for instance, the one about freedom of the press from government abridgment. Should the 1st Amendment be interpreted to mean that the press does not have a capacity to print stories beyond some hypothetical need for household safety?

Comments

  • Olav says:

    I think his diet should be restricted to what is needed nutritionally and that’s it. Nothing else. For national health reasons.

  • Nadnerbus says:

    Makes more sense, Constitutionally. There’s not passage in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing a varied diet.

    It’s interesting to see the anti-gun side of the debate try to shift their tactics in accordance with Heller. They can see their previous argument getting shredded by precedent, and are making a tactical retreat to the next position to snipe from. It’s no longer that the 2nd refers to government “regulated” militias, since that was retarded all along and was thrown out by the SCOTUS. Now it’s a right, but only a bare minimum one. And still seems to have nothing to do with fighting off tyranny.

    So we get to see test runs on their next arguments, to see how the strategic political ground will shape up. This is just one.

  • Jerry in Detroit says:

    Don’t worry about the First Amendment; They intend to limit that to “authorized” journalists.

  • Rignerd says:

    The only reason we still have a first amendment is because the second is still limping along. The ninth and tenth should be resurrected too.

  • MyGunSpot says:

    It is sad how little respect that some people have for our sacred constitutional rights…

Comments Closed