Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Judge blocks New Mexico governor's temporary ban on carrying guns in public in Albuquerque" video.

@Look_What_You_DidI agree if their felonies weren't violent in nature.
21
@Look_What_You_DidThat would be a disaster. Law enforcement needs major reform, not abolishment.
15
 @larryneville1811 Rights can't be taken, only violated.
13
And Joe Biden.
8
Arms did not mean "muskets." If they meant muskets, they would have said "muskets." There were automatic weapons at the time the 2A was written (the pickle gun is one example). The purpose of the 2A was to be able to form an armed militia if and when it is needed, and this meant citizens were to be armed in case they were called upon. The 2A serves as a deterrent to government tyranny, because our founders understand that all governments are at the mercy of human nature. A government would exercise power to serve only itself if it feared no consequences from the citizens.
7
@Josh-ky2oc Public safety must be balanced with rights. In the case of a convicted mass shooter, the future safety of the public would outweigh his right to own a firearm. In other words, the right to life and liberty of citizens would supersede his right to own a firearm. It's not an infringement on his rights, because in essence, he infringed on his own right by not respecting the laws and the rights of others.
6
 @silencedogood7297 How will this save kids? If anything, it puts kids in more danger.
6
You can't restrict the 2A in the manner she did. And this puts kids in more danger, not less.
5
@newaccountdoesnotequaltrol6409 Well said. I agree with all of your comments. 👍🇺🇲
2
@sanperchannel9560 I hope so.
1
@ThisisKyle Well, if someone has served their sentence and released into the public, they can still be dangerous. It's not a clear cut argument when you consider all the possible permutations of circumstances.
1
@csyarid Of course it doesn't explicitly say that in the Constitution. I'm not claiming that rights may be violated to effect public safety, only that reasonable and narrowly tailored limits are permitted when it's done to satisfy a compelling public interest. For example, time, place, and manner restrictions on the first amendment. Do you think loud noise ordinances are unconstitutional?
1
Better late than never.
1
 @42snoopdog You beat me to it.
1
@christinebonner2210 You must have misunderstood one of my comments, because I'm actually on your side.
1
@extraterrestrialpolymathnerd The root cause of the problem isn't guns, its the moral and cultural rot infesting our society. Kids are being indoctrinated by public schools and being raised by social media. A morally compromised people cannot have true freedom. The more a people is immoral and unethical, the more heavy handed a government must be to maintain order. "The Golden Triangle of Freedom" posits that virtue, faith, and freedom are inextricably linked and interdependent. Might be something to research if you want to learn a little bit more.
1