In looking for info on today's hearings on Heller v. DC, I have run across a few quotes that begged to be commented on.
The first is a comment that was listed by the Associated Press. The title is Reactions to Gun-Ban Arguments. The quote is one that scares the living crap out of me.
Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles: "In my view, the ultimate issue here is can the city impose reasonable regulation on a constitutional right? There is no constitutional right that is not subject to reasonable regulation."
Forgive me, maybe I'm just dense. But see, I was taught that a right is not something that can be regulated or denied. If it can be, then it's not a right. It's a privilege. But then, I'm not a politician. Apparently, their vocabulary has different meanings than, you know, ... English.
The second comment is from "a coalition of park rangers and park service retirees" quoted in an article covering a proposed piece of legislation that would allow the carrying of loaded firearms in national parks. They claim: "There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits hunting."
My first thought when I saw this was that the group must be made of rangers who never left their offices. I can think of any number of "legitimate and substantive" reasons for carrying a loaded firearm in the wild. The first ones that come to mind are bears, mountain lions, snakes, rabid animals... (That's even ignoring human predators who use the isolation of these parks to commit crimes.)
I suppose they think I'm just not a "thoughtful" gun owner. But quite frankly, I don't think I'm the one who's not thinking.