I ran into someone on the internet who claimed that your Constitutional rights are void if people around you dislike what you're doing.
His example: If you're sitting in a classroom and you're legally concealing a weapon, if the students around you are uncomfortable with you doing this they can vote to void your right (to keep and bear arms).
This example was made under the assumption that the student is legally allowed to conceal carry on campus, has gone through the necessary background checks, and has the license.
His exact words were "if the majority of your students don't want you armed in the classroom they are sharing with you, then I believe you shouldn't be armed. I would extend that to a city, state or nation."
Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, i.e. the supreme law of the land, can't be denied just because they're unpopular. So if I start speaking out against gay marriage in San Francisco they should be able to take my right to free speech away? No, it's guaranteed by the First Amendment. If I commit a hate-crime in a predominately black city should they be able to take my right to a fair trial away, just because there was an element of racism? No, because a fair, speedy, and public trial is guaranteed to me by the Sixth Amendment. If I do a news report over a corrupt presidential administration should they be able to take my freedom of the press rights away from me because the president's popular? No, because I'm guaranteed this right under the First Amendment. What if I'm a member of the Westboro Baptist Church and I stand on a street corner with a sign that reads 'GOD HATES FAGS' should I be imprisoned for my views? No, because I'm guaranteed freedom of religion under the First Amendment.
The Second Amendment is no different. Just because you're uncomfortable with my right to carry a gun for my protection doesn't mean that you can deny me that right.
Our rights are not to be compromised just because they're unpopular.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
On the other hand, a number of amendment rights have been established by popularity (through a majority vote), and in the legally recognized practice of jury veto, persons guilty of criminal offenses may be spared conviction because the charges brought against them are seen as unpopular. Now, you were arguing that rights, once established, may not be denied because they are unpopular, obviously, and not the other way around. But isn't it interesting how this is effectively the case in one direction (the establishment of rights and leniency towards crimes), but not in the other (denial of rights, unfair prosecution)?
Post a Comment