A Quote by John Silber

I don't believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness... The Constitution doesn't count!
We simply want gun legislation in this country that allows law-abiding citizens to still own guns or prevents people with a history of mental illness or a history of a criminal background from owning a firearm.
Duty does not require any person to submit to the destruction of his personal ambitions and the right to live his own life in his own way.
When I was a prosecutor, I got to shoot at the range so I could explain to juries how the firearm worked. You know, to prove intent or to prove that the person didn't accidentally discharge the firearm, I would have to learn everything about the firearm.
The thing about drugs is this ... the Libertarians kind of have the right idea on this: Basically, their theory is that you own your own body, and the government should get out of your face. But, you also do not have the right to harm other people or to impinge on their rights or space. So, let's apply that to drugs . If you want to get wrecked, and you could afford it, and you have a place to do it where the results of your behavior can't harm another person, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
No man can delegate,... any right of arbitrary dominion over a 3rd person; for that would imply a right in the 1st person, not only to make the 3rd person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one...To call such a contract a “constitution” does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity.
There is no superior person by constitutional standards. An applicant who is white is entitled to no advantage by reason of that fact, nor is he subject to any disability, no matter what his race or color. Whatever his race, an applicant has a constitutional right to have his application considered on its individual merits.
There should be a background check every time a firearm is transferred. You shouldn't be able to go to a gun show and buy guns without a background check. There are Internet gun sales, classified ads in the newspapers - and you can buy guns without background checks.
A Lifetime Warranty on a concealed carry firearm isn't much good, If the firearm fails in an armed encounter, the owner of the firearm might expire, along with the warranty.
I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun.
Individuals who have demonstrated serious violent behaviour or have been involved in gang activity have forfeited the right to ever be trusted to own a firearm.
What responsible gun owner thinks everyone and anyone should have access to a firearm without a little bit of precaution taken to make sure that those who have a history of violent harm can't buy a firearm?
A person could see a lot without ever leaving his own living room. Especially if he had the right tools.
I believe there is a limit beyond which free speech cannot go, but it's a limit that's very seldom mentioned. It's the point where free speech begins to collide with the right to privacy. I don't think there are any other conditions to free speech. I've got a right to say and believe anything I please, but I haven't got a right to press it on anybody else. .... Nobody's got a right to be a nuisance to his neighbors.
I presented a bill that will address a glaring loophole that allows gun buyers to bypass a background check by purchasing guns as kits. These kits allow anyone to purchase a totally untraceable firearm. The act simply says these weapons should be regulated like other firearms and require background checks.
It is a right to have a firearm to protect yourself. But it is not your right to be irresponsible. At the end of the day, it is not the gun that kills you, it is the irresponsible person that does.
There is no passion that so much transports men from their right judgments as anger. No one would demur upon punishing a judge with death who should condemn a criminal upon the account of his own choler; why then should fathers and pedants be any more allowed to whip and chastise children in their anger? It is then no longer correction bat revenge. Chastisement is instead of physic to children; and should we suffer a physician who should be animated against and enraged at his patient?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!