Comment: Stossel 'VS' O'Snearly, Really?

(See in situ)

Stossel 'VS' O'Snearly, Really?

Stossel does not recognize the utter necessity of military equivalent firearms to defend against tyranny in government?

Stossel promotes 'laws' to prevent 'dangerous felons' and 'mentally ill' from buying guns. First, from where does that infringement authority derive, constitutionally? Second, who is it that determines a 'dangerous felon and what 'mentally ill' means? So many things are classed as 'felonies' and so may deemed 'mental' that perhaps a militia member, a prepper, a conspiracist, a liberty advocate, will be deemed mentally ill, eh?

Stossel says it makes sense that people do not 'need' AR15s, as if 'need' is a determining factor at all, let alone as a government measure of allowance.

Stossel sees a federal government registration of 'assault weapons as making sense?

It seems to me that what I saw was two elites, discussing the extent to which is fine for the state to infringe on that which is enumerated to be non-infringeable.

Nothing 'vs' or adversarial about it.

Pathetic and one should take note that Stossel's positions are frequently portrayed in the MSM as being representative of what a Libertarian' is.

No thanks, I will just remain an individualist and a constitutionalist.