View Single Post
  #69  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:34 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There have been an uncountable number of 2nd Amendment debates through the years(7.2 septillion on this board alone) about the meanings of "militia", "arms", "well regulated" etc., but in my personal opinion these debates are not being argued in good faith by those actually believe that it doesn't really matter how the 2nd Amendment is finally interpreted because they have a right to whatever weaponry they think they need (Natural Law, Natural Rights, God-Given Rights etc.) and 2nd Amendment be damned.
I don't see that as a contradiction at all let alone 'dishonest'.

Most people believe there is a natural right to free expression in some form. It doesn't render all their detailed arguments about what the first amendment means in practice 'dishonest'.

And the 9th Amendment itself explicitly introduces the concept of a 'parallel track' of rights not enumerated ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). There's likewise no logical basis to say that rights which *are* enumerated would disappear if they had not been enumerated.

And it's particularly discordant for the generally left leaning pro gun control side to talk about their 'facts' v other side's 'beliefs' on guns when the same people mainly assert entirely non-enumerated right to redefine marriage from the traditional one man/one woman formula, or the right to abortion. Those are obviously beliefs. And there's nothing wrong with beliefs. Many questions are matters of belief, and marriage definition, abortion, gun and speech rights are all examples.

But since the Constitution does mention speech and gun rights, it's only natural and appropriate to debate what the relevant passages mean or should be held to mean. Which again you can't do for rights which aren't enumerated at all. That doesn't somehow make marriage definition or abortion debates inherently more 'honest' than speech or gun rights debates.

The principal two 'inherent problems in 2A discussions' are IMO different than yours:
1) discussion of repeal and 'what if's' following repeal when repeal of the 2A is as close to 100% 'not gonna happen' as something could politically be.
2) federal gun control in the US could be made far stricter without changing or repealing the 2nd amendment, if there were the votes. I realize there is always a secondary issue of what future judges could find unconstitutional with 2A that they couldn't without it...but that's back to point 1). But it probably makes more sense IMO before focusing so much on 2A from pro-control POV to wait until there are actually major laws which could pass nationally but have been found unconstitutional under 2A. As it is there are loads of restrictive laws in various states and localities which have not been found unconstitutional but which can't be enacted nationally for lack of votes, besides total lack of votes to pass them in various other states. That's not directly about the 2A. And going the other way, which are the major gun laws passed nationally in the US then overturned based on the 2A? I don't know of any. Or even the laws a reasonable person could say would pass Congress except House and Senate members are afraid the laws would be overturned based on 2A? I can't think of any examples of that either.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-11-2019 at 03:36 PM.