Don Foreman wrote:

If that right was God-given and inalienable there would be no need for
the 2d amendment. It would be redundant and we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
A right is something you're born with. A privilege
is something given. A right cannot be taken away
(legally), but it can be waived.

Sorry, that's wrong. Some constitutional rights are denied to felons
but nevermind that since neither of us are felons yet. Well, I'm not
anyway. Citizens have constitutional rights and citizenship is
conferred by birth (or by naturalization). A right that is
conferred by the constitution or an amendment thereto, the 2d in this
case, can be modified or abolished by a subsequent amendment. For
example, the 21st amendment repealed and reversed the 18th. The people
voted and made it so.
Maybe the problem is too many people believe the
right to keep and bear arms is actually a privilege.

It is a right conferred by the 2d amendment to the constitution. That
amendment can be modifed, nullified or repealed by a subsequent
amendment.

I disagree. The stated purpose of the Bill of Rights was to set down a
list of rights that preexist the Constitution. The Constitution
recognizes that these rights therefore belong to all, not just US
citizens.


In this case, the guy broke no laws, breached no
etiquette, and only in separate statements, came across
as a bit less than "enlightened."

I agree that he broke no laws and I'll accept your assessment that he
breached no Arizona etiquette. But the media put it on a national
stage. As you have seen, the reaction is not the same everywhere as
your reaction in AZ.

You expect to someone to anticipate every screwball media reaction to
any action they report? What did you anticipate Perez Hilton's
reaction would be to this Arizona citizen?

I think the biggest difference between the way the
"message" played in AZ as opposed to elsewhere was the
emotional response.

Yes indeed. The event/act may well have been yawnably unremarkable in
Arizona to Arizonians.

Unfortunately, thanks to the media's 1st-amendment-protected
irresponsible appetite for sensationalism, his audience extended far
beyond AZ to some places where opinions were apparently quite
different.

So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them, and there are a whole lot of
urbanites in the US outside of AZ. The time and notion of people
minding their own damned business seems to be long gone in this
internet age.

I see that as a loss.

I also have a problem with the weakness from fear shown by your DUs,
as opposed to strength from knowledge of those who haven't learned
what they know about firearms and rights from Hollywood and the media.

David