Individual gun politics are generally a complex relation of an individual or private family's rights, responsibilities and restrictions within the overlapping domains of their nation, internal state and local community, plus international considerations. Individual gun politics are often philosophically contrasted with group or collective rights (see next). In a 2004 Memorandum, it was an opinion stated by the US Attorney General, "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militia." Individual gun politics are not limited to laws alone, but also extends to practices and customs, ethics, philosophies, and personal expressions. Individuals may have their own widely diverging, personal, and sometimes contentious political thoughts on guns.
Read more about this topic: Domains Of Gun Politics
Famous quotes containing the word individual:
“The contention that a standing army and navy is the best security of peace is about as logical as the claim that the most peaceful citizen is he who goes about heavily armed. The experience of every-day life fully proves that the armed individual is invariably anxious to try his strength. The same is historically true of governments. Really peaceful countries do not waste life and energy in war preparations, with the result that peace is maintained.”
—Emma Goldman (1869–1940)
“Compared to football, baseball is almost an Oriental game, minimizing individual stardom, requiring a wide range of aggressive and defensive skills, and filled with long periods of inaction and irresolution. It has no time limitations. Football, on the other hand, has immediate goals, resolution on every single play, and a lot of violence—itself a highlight. It has clearly distinguishable hierarchies: heroes and drones.”
—Jerry Mander, U.S. advertising executive, author. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, ch. 15, Morrow (1978)
“Quintilian [educational writer in Rome about A.D. 100] hoped that teachers would be sensitive to individual differences of temperament and ability. . . . Beating, he thought, was usually unnecessary. A teacher who had made the effort to understand his pupil’s individual needs and character could probably dispense with it: “I will content myself with saying that children are helpless and easily victimized, and that therefore no one should be given unlimited power over them.””
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)