A book of mine at home (I think it was “The History of the Irish Race” reports that a common abuse of English in Ireland was to go up to someone and offer them 5 pounds for their horse right then and there. If they didn’t accept the money immediately, then it meant their horse was obviously worth more than 5 pounds, and thus it could be seized, and re-sold at auction (or sold privately by the authorities to the person who made the offer).
You do realize that the world is a much different place than it was before the advent of the automobile, right? Back then, because it took a long time to travel, most things were within distances where foot and horse travel was practical. These days, it’s not likely that everything someone would need is within these distances, precisely because of the automobile.
The whole “use your feet” argument fails on practical terms.
BTW, the whole “I don’t care” posturing is the best position to take.
You are being short sighted. You seem to think that just because foot and horse travel was practical before cars that it’s a viable solution now.
Look, I am Whitey McWhite guy living in the suburbs. I know that without my car, life would be very difficult. Regardless, that does not mean I have a right to own one.
I never said that at all, about horses anyway.
So, if an American carries a firearm with a bac over .08, is he protected by the constitution because he has a constitutional right to carry ?
Try carrying it in DC and see what happens. Write in from jail and let us know how it went, ehe?
-XT
Who said there is a constitutional right to carry? I’m one of the biggest 2a supporters on this site and even I don’t believe that. Own and defend yourself, sure. Carry concealed? Nope.
Why owning and bearing firearms is a right:
Because originally, the terms of the Constitution forbade states from having their own state armies (Article One, Section Ten, Third Clause). And professional constabularies hadn’t been invented yet. The only way local law and order could be enforced if the local sheriff couldn’t handle it himself was to deputize armed citizens into a posse, or for state officials to call armed citizens to serve as soldiers, the militia. The Second Amendment guaranteed that the federal government couldn’t pass a federal disarming law that would leave the states helpless and dependent. Even today, the 2nd protects civil police forces from being considered “troops” under A1S10C3.
Good call by Lumpy on the practical application of the “militia” part of the 2nd Amendment. One of the reasons the framers felt they HAD to explicitly mention it that was that they could well imagine, from contemporary or nearly-so precedents, such a scenario. (Which is also why the original constitution did not even really contemplate a large standing national army, but rather “armies” that would be levied as the need arose, partly from the militia itself. Nice idea but reality intervened and history happened)
As other posters have mentioned, Keeping and Bearing Arms may be a constitutional right but is is *NOT *an unrestricted right: the national government, states and localities can and do require observing various degrees of permitting, licensing, registration, background-checking, and other such “place, time and manner” regulations in order to exercise it. I cannot buy a SAM battery for my rooftop and I can’t walk into the State Capitol carrying a loaded M60. Even the recent SCotUS case that affirmed that K&BA is an individual right did NOT deny localities regulatory authority, just that the regulation cannot be a de-facto total ban. Even speech/press/religion is not an unrestricted right.
(Oh, BTW, in many jurisdictions, weapons laws restrict sales and use of switchblades, blackjacks and other such non-firearms as well – heck, even when talking about the sharp stick: if you actually USED the sharp stick, or any stick, as a weapon, the law considers you to have been “armed”.)
It would seem that the right of mobility would be one of the non-enumerated “rights reserved to the People”, as something that the common law would deem a natural faculty of a free person (the fact that the majority of the framers were OK with the idea of whole classes of nonfree persons is another story). In any case, it would be a right also subject to “place, time and manner” regulations, aka Motor Vehicle Laws, TSA, etc.; and subject to a rational-basis evaluation as to whether a particular regulation has the effect of an undue restriction of liberty.
Nitpick. Nitpick. Nitpick. Nitpick. Nitpick. Nitpick. Nitpick. Nitpick the nitpicks. Repeat ad infinitum.
If there’s one thing you can always rely on in a GD discussion, it’s the relentless trend to take a potentially lively topic and turn it unpleasantly dry - degrading it into a one-upping, nanny nanny boo-boo, well-nigh-Talmudic quibblefest of ever finer and more hypothetical abstractions.
I’d call you all sea lawyers, but that would be an insult to sailors.
Carry on. Not that one non-GDer’s opinion matters anyway, especially if he has no itty-bitty granules of concrete data to toss in the eyes of others.
Oh, the irony.
I don’t know what irony is referred to, but the man has a point. The OP is quite clear. Driving, in this day and age, is basically the most important aspect of many of our lives, and is essential for a vast majority of Americans to function. Since it is indeed just a privilege, the state can take that right away at any time, for any reason they wish, and destroy the life and livelihood of an individual that has come to depend on using public roads that the state itself built.
How many here would lose their jobs if they lost their license, being unable to get to work? How many here couldn’t even make it to court to argue to keep their license if they lost their license?
I could definitely see a case being made for access to public roadways being right, not a privilege. This doesn’t mean the government must provide a person with a car, much like they don’t provide people with guns. It simply means that they must have a very, very compelling reason to deny a person the right to drive on roadways.