Just a couple of days ago I was reading this article (h/t Uncle) and started thinking to myself “gee… what if we had to go through that much for something like free speech?” I mean, if you had to go to class, learn the laws, demonstrate proficiency, pass tests, get permits, could have the permit revoked if you didn’t properly exercise your speech, pay all sorts of fees, deal with all sorts of bureaucracy, etc. etc.. If such a thing happened, people would be hysterical and would never allow such a thing. It would be considered unreasonable.
What if such a thing was done for practicing of religion? That before you could practice your religion you had to learn everything about it, demonstrate you could perform the rituals, obtain a license, be forced to renew every 5 years, be fingerprinted and background checked before you could join. Is that reasonable?
Yet, all this permitting and hoopla for gun carry is considered reasonable.
Why?
I mean, you could argue that all of those things would be good before someone could be allowed to speak. Heck, what if we added a requirement that you could only speak English? Would that be reasonable?
Some might say “but a gun can kill”. True, but words can be even more destructive. What’s the difference?
So I was going to write up a nice piece on this, but Linoge took care of it for me. Give it a read. You don’t have to like guns, but if you care about freedom, if you care about consistency and integrity, it’s a hell of a good point.
Stuff From Hsoi 
Many people complain about the same thing with having a driver’s license. They have a ‘right to drive’ after all dammit!
However, what they don’t understand is, driving is a priviledge.
I’ll disagree. Traveling in general, and driving in particular are rights. If you are denied your right to drive in the USA you are going to have serious trouble living and working in most of the country. You’d be a second class citizen. Hope you live in a major city with functioning mass transit.
Now, if you make a habit of making an ass of yourself while driving then it is certainly reasonable to suspend your right to drive. It’s the whole your right to drive drunk ends at my fender thing.
I would agree that TRAVEL would be a right, but driving? No… you can walk, you can take a bus, you can have someone drive you, you can use a bicycle or a unicycle.
Now yes, we have set up our society such that if you cannot utilize a method of transportation that allows you to traverse great distances in a short period of time you are at a disadvantage, but is it THAT bad? I mean, it takes longer to ride public bussing than it does to just drive straight there… are we going to say that there’s some denial of rights there? Does that lower your citizenship class?
Same with a phone. Lacking a telephone today can truly cripple your ability to perform… so we have crap like the Universal Service Fund and other such things to ensure everyone has a phone (if that’s right or not is another debate). But is having a phone a right?
Thanks for the linkage. Seems I popped a few peoples’ bubbles by getting there before them :).
Regardless, applying the same “permitting” process to any other right would cause immediate and massive backlash against politicians, and yet it is considered perfectly appropriate for this particular right. Inconsistent? Just a little…
Inconsistency makes the government go ’round.