Whether she believes it or not, neither issue will come to pass.
That's a particular decision, and most people won't even change their vote over it (per the same poll). Difficult to argue that's what the 'fear' is about.
But, look, fair enough. I don't want this to sound like I'm defending Shillary or anything like that, and I already said what I thought about that FBI decision.
Not defending it, but it's a tried and true strategy that a lot of red states have attempted with abortion (ie: Texas restricting doctors with ridiculous requirements to curb abortion because they simply can't outright outlaw it). I just don't remember the outrage from conservatives back then when a different cons utional right was being patently violated. It would be nice to hold all right over the partisan BS, but c'est la vie.
The SCOTUS (and that's with Scalia) was already on record in the DC case that the 2nd amendment is not beyond regulation. That's why gun-free zones are legal, why the 4th amendment doesn't apply to certain areas close to the country's borders, why yelling 'bomb' in a public place isn't considered speech protected by the 1st amendment, and we can go down the list of regulations to a lot of rights. This isn't new. It might be new to the 2nd amendment, but overall, it's not new at all.
NRA hyperbole. A vast majority of gun owners would abide by the law, and those that don't because of irrational paranoia deserve the penalty.
This is a huge fallacy. You don't have to register for free speech, or for freedom of the press, or to peacefully assemble or for due process. Why should you have to register and get approval for a cons utional right?
What you're saying is akin to saying that requiring registration for a car is the same thing as saying you cannot drive your car across the football field at the local HS during a game. One is a requirement for ownership and the other is a restriction of use.
It's more towards the fact that certain cons utional rights are not absolute, much to the dismay of some people. At least looking at precedent, it's not difficult to understand certain amount of regulation in the name of, say, "public safety".
That said, such regulation has largely come from Congress, which is why how Shillary feels about this shouldn't really matter. Some will point out a potential lefty SCOTUS could be an enabler, but frankly, if that's the case, a gun owner registry should be the least of your concerns.
Rights are indeed absolute. That doesn't mean they won't be infringed upon by governments. If they weren't absolute they wouldn't be rights, just permissions. The 2nd Amendment didn't give people the right to bear arms. It restricted government from infringing upon what was considered to be basic rights.
In practice there are no rights without a government to enforce their protection through law.
They're inherently permissions. The creation of the government that granted some of those rights unequivocally provided said government with rules to remove some of those rights under certain conditions. Just a brief read of the Third or Fifth Amendment gives you the idea that there's plenty of room for caveat emptors in some of these rights, and, at the very least some, were intentionally designed that way.
And it's not just government either. Government is certainly the ultimate enabler, but I've heard good arguments about, for example, arbitration running afoul of the fifth amendment (the whole 'deprived of ... property, without due process of law'). And people give that up routinely. But if they truly are 'inalienable', in the full meaning of the word, they wouldn't be able to.
So if I can steal your money, it's not rightfully yours because I am only permitting you to have it if I don't steal it? The government didn't grant rights. The rights are assumed "self evident". Even voting rights are assumed to be corrections to injustices, not charitable relinquishing of rights. What person has the ability to issue rights? All they can do is honor them, but even if they don't, it doesn't mean the rights don't exist. Only you can relinquish your rights, and that's what the caveats propose you do in certain situations. You aren't required to be in a crowded theater, nor are you required to be in a place where more than half of their income is derived by sale of liquor for consumption on premises. Those are some of your options, but to make those options you know that you give up your legal permission to carry a firearm, or to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and incite panic. If a court of law found you were within your cons utional right to do these things even if it was against the law, the law would have to be changed. The 5th Amendment is about self incrimination. The 4th is about unlawful search and seizure.
The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed upon". Becoming a prisoner has always caused you to give up your ability to exercise your rights. Joining the military does something very similar. In those cases you aren't giving up your rights nor are they taken from you. You still have the rights, you just cannot exercise them. Permission has always been the roadblock to rights, but that doesn't mean rights don't exist. You wouldn't say people don't have basic human rights simply because they aren't being afforded the decency of them by some dictatorship like PRNK.
The purpose of the BoR is to tell government what they cannot do, not to tell people what they can do. The rights list isn't exhaustive.
Unless you want to decay into a solipsism, there are rights regardless who enforces them, otherwise there can be no rights violations in situations where no one was around to act as a controlling agent against tyranny.
First of all, there's a key Cons utional right that you DO have to register for. I'll let you come up with it yourself.
Second, the firearm registration example we're discussing wouldn't necessarily be a part of an approval process to acquire the firearm. Background checks that you passed to acquire said firearm would still be valid. This just ensures that every firearm is assigned to an individual at all times. Transfer should be logged.
You're conflating basic human rights with rights granted through a government contract (I.e. The BoR). Regardless, it's all emotional prattle. In reality, if you do not have a government to enforce said rights, they cannot be exercised.
You need to read Plato, natural law theory and learn the legal term "negative pregnant". Rights aren't granted. They are protected. By stating which rights are protected they are, in effect, allowing the other aspects on the fringe to be molested. It's like me saying "you can't sit there" but then you can sit anywhere else, you assume, if I am the sole authority of where you can sit (not just where you cannot).
By whom are rights protected?
Do tell.
So if your property isn't protected you don't have property? Aren't you painting yourself into a corner with this paradox? No rights without protection, nothing to protect without rights?
We're specifically discussing cons utional rights. Those were granted by the government to it's citizens upon the creation of said government and thereafter. We're not discussing vienna convention rights, human rights, moral rights, etc.
Nobody claimed the rights cease to exist. But, as you plainly state, they're permissive by nature. Thus, since there are conditions involved, they're not absolute. Perhaps this is a communication problem and 'absolute' is the wrong word here? I just don't know how to state it more plainly, in that they're permissive in nature and subject to certain conditions. Those conditions can and have varied through the years. They've been codified in law and such.
Under that premise, the government requiring a gun owner registry, for example, is unlikely to impinge on anybody's 2nd amendment right. Government confiscating certain weapons, on the other hand, might.
IIRC, in the DC case the issue was the government trying to bar the sale of certain types of weapons and the discussion centered around whether some weapons were very popular for home defense (a certain type of shotgun, IIRC). It wasn't an outright 'no, you can't do that', it was more along the lines of 'not those weapons, since a lot of people use it for home defense'. That's what I was pointing out, that even the SCOTUS, with Scalia, wasn't necessarily completely dismissive to attempts to regulate that right (or change the conditions), but there's obviously a limit on how much those conditions can change.
that was the gloss until er, which rewrote 225 years of case law to find a novel individual right to bear arms.
er was the novelty; the liberal justices gloss would restore the law to the status quo ante.
I never implied that rights don't exist without protection. Your second amendment right is both granted and protected by the federal government. That right could be removed by repealing the 2nd amendment. It is in no way an absolute right.
So what other right do you have to register for?
The right to arms and the duty of the government to regulate them was there at the founding.
Men had to register their weapons, possession was mandated, not optional, and government inspectors would come by to check the weapons.
Free blacks and slaves were prohibited to own guns. How is that not gun control?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
