Don’t know how it is in other states, my impression is that it is well nigh universal. But here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota, you buy a car, you have to register it, you have to file papers transferring ownership. And Hugh Betcha, there is a fee.
And if you sell the car, whether to a dealership, a personal friend or relation, or at some sort of automobile show, you have to register it. Does anyone worry about the database of car owners, cringing in dread of The Day when Obama comes and takes all your cars?
So, what’s the problem? Cars kill people when misused, thought a car is not manufactured specifically as a weapon, as guns are. Seems to me a car is rather less obviously a candidate for registration and tracking than a gun. But there it is, and no one seems to be losing their shit over it.
The correct interpretation of “well-regulated militia” is one without any regulation whatsoever. The Founding Fathers did love their little jokes, didn’t they?
No, but there’s no Dianne Feinstein or Carolyn McCarthy of cars that have been trying to take them away for decades. There’s never been anything like a “Handgun Control, Inc” for cars. If there were, then I might be a bit worried, and grateful for a National Vehicle Association committed to defend my right to own and use a vehicle.
Come now, John, do you really think all this is about the Constitution? And we do have such laws, and the Supremes have ruled that those laws that regulate gun ownership do not abridge gun ownership, yes? So either “regulate” is the same as “abridge” and we have already rendered that amendment moot, or it doesn’t, and we are free to regulate.
Don’t see how you can have it both ways without some creative semantic imagination. And I’m not the guy for that.
I don’t know how it is in your state, but here you have to have insurance for your car. Would insisting that gun owners have such liability insurance “abridge” their rights?
I don’t think a comparison between cars and guns is of any value because, yes, I do believe pro-gun folks generally know that one is explicitly protected by the constitution and one is not. And I’m sure each and every person on this MB can easily think of some SCOTUS ruling he or she thinks is wrong and should be overturned, so saying “the SCOTUS has ruled thus and so” isn’t of much use, either. It’s certainly true, but isn’t going to persuade many people they are wrong.
Either the Constitution is inviolate and sacred, or it isn’t. So either we have “abridged” that right, or we haven’t. We outlawed “tommy guns”, yes? Did the sky fall? Not that I noticed.
So, I ask you: have we abridged that right, or no? And if we have, how do we regain our violated virginity? And if we have not, then why can we not apply the same reasons to outlaw “tommy guns” to other weapons?
There is a HUGE difference between an approximatley 50/50 national split on the AWB issue where Republicans are generally representing their consituencies when they oppose an AWB and a 90/10 split on the background check issue where they are not.
Opposing a universal background check is (IMHO) bending to the will of a special interest. Sure universal background checks are not as effective without universal registration but it is a real impreovement that will have measurable effects. An AWB had 10 eyars with no discernible effect.
I bet there is bipartisan support for a universal nackground check in the senate. Hell I’d bet a few House Republicans would vote for a universal background check.
The opposition to the AWB in the senate is bipartisan.
Frankly I don’t think the background check goes far enough. I think we should have universal gun registration and licensing. I don’t think you should be able to transfer guns to your family members without a background check (maybe noone told grandpa that his grandson is a felon or a wifebeater).
Obama’s half assed plan exempts transfers between family members.
At least teh concept in general seems to enjoy broad support.
If the question was “should I be able to sell a gun in the McDonald’s parking lot to some guy that answered a craigslist ad without a background check” I bet most people would say no.
If the question is “should i be able to give my 25 year old grandson a gun for his birthday without a background check” I bet the answer is probably yes even though my grandson might be a wifebeating felon
Obama’s halfassed background check rule exempts transfers between family members.
The percentage of the population that want to confiscate ALL guns is somewhere around 12%. They probably remember too.
The current system has stopped millions of ineligible people from buying guns. They might have gotten their hands on guns anyways but damming half a river is better than nothing.
You never got one as a gift or gave one as a gift?
And funding, lets not forget the funding.
They are propsing expanding the universe of sales that it is supposed to monitor to the entire universe of sales
We didn’t outlaw tommy guns. Anyone that can buy a regular gun can buy a tommy gun if they can afford it and fill out the proper forms.
I agree that no right under the constitution is absolute. But because it is a right, any restriction of that right has to pass constitutional muster and I don’t see why the standard for the second amendment right should be any lower than the standard for the first amendment right.
And if you don’t fill out those forms? Then you have broken the law, yes? Now, if you want to say that registering guns and filling out the forms and identifying yourself, all that good stuff, does not “abridge” your rights, I’m fine with that. And maybe you are fine with that as well.
Perhaps we can say, no, your rights are not abridged if you may only own the weapon under certain defined circumstances. And we are free to define those circumstances as we choose. We could easily that yes, you may own such a weapon if you are a member of the National Guard, a regulated militia if ever I saw one. And, by the same token, we can say that failing that exception, you may not.
Has the 2nd Amendment been violated under those circumstances? I certainly don’t think so, but then I’m not a 2nd Amendment absolutist. To my eyes, the clause referring to a regulated militia is central to the Amendment. And therefore only a member of such a militia has such protections.
Others claim that it reads that no such laws are Constitutional ever, under any circumstance, period, full stop. Which of course means we are obligated to chuck out all of those laws. And crazy Uncle Henry can buy a Thompson sub-machine gun down at Wal-Mart if he so chooses, without filling out a form or any such “abrdigement” of his inviolable 2nd Amendment rights.
Don’t see how you can have it both ways, outside of the sort of creative semantic engineering that is beyond my ken.
See, now you’re shifting the argument. I’m not trying to make a case about any particular regulation. I was just pointing out that the analogy to cars fails, because cars are not protected by the constitution. You ask, seemingly surprised, why people don’t get up in arms (pun intended) about having to register their cars and pay a fee. Well, the simple reason is that cars are not protected by the constitution like guns are.
A better analogy would be voting. And, you know, people do get up in arms if they have to pay a fee to vote.
I mean, the usual tactic of the left is to invent civil rights. Certainly the word abortion doesn’t appear once in the Constitution, yet somehow an abortion is a civil right.
Bearing arms without having that right infringed is at least mentioned in the text.
So it seems to me that if I say it is, I have a stronger case for my claim than the pre-Roe v Wade folks had for theirs.
Then that right exists as far as your words hold sway.
Excuse me, but this is nothing more than a sweeping bullshit generalization, backed by nothing more than what you feel. And the only reason why I don’t cite recent instances where the **right **has done exactly that is that I don’t want to sidetrack the thread any further.
This, OTOH, is backed by a Supreme Court decision. That right exists as far as its words hold sway.
You may have noticed that we’re not pre-Roe. Besides, what the pre-Roe folks did was to take a case to the Supreme Court, and convince seven of the nine Justices.
When you find a way to take your words up the judicial ladder, we’ll find out if you have a stronger case. Until then: sorry, Charlie.
Besides which, where in the Constitution does it say that the Constitution contains and defines all human rights, past, present and future? Are we given to understand that if it isn’t in the Constitution, it does not exist as a right? Is that one of them there umbras?
ETA: Silly me, thought it was about the Constitution, but upon reflection, its about Liberal Hypocrisy, the #2 threat to the Republic. Sorry, Bricker.
Now that Bricker’s brought it up, how about a comparison between abortion and guns?
The Supremes have ruled that a woman has a Constitutional right to an abortion. Yet that right can be, and is in many states, hedged and burdened in ways that have little to do with any remotely compelling state interest.
It’s true that only the right to bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution, albeit with phraseology that has left the intended meaning considerably muddled, and left even the literal meaning in a thicket of debate over grammar and syntax. But the Supremes have ruled that the right to an abortion is a consequence of the Constitution. And that is that, until such time as they rule to the contrary.
These two things are both Constitutional rights. Why can one be circumscribed in all sorts of ways that I’d hope even **Bricker *would agree are ridiculous (width of doors, admitting privileges, the ‘women can’t think on weekends’ law), yet leave us free to claim that the least imposition on the other is a fundamental violation of that right?
*Can’t remember which state, which had already had a 72-hour waiting period on the books, recently passed legislation saying that weekends didn’t count towards satisfying it.
As I’m sure you know, the Ninth Amendment explicitly speaks to the contrary. Madison and friends were very concerned that future generations, seeing a list of rights specifically enumerated, would regard that list as complete and all-encompassing.
Then why aren’t people metaphorically (or actually) up in arms over the ban on fully automatic weapons?
It’s because the limits you already live under, you are used it. If the US had waited until a significant portion of the population owned automatic weapons, they would have been up in arms over banning that. And if we didn’t have universal car registration and driver licensing requirements, people would indeed by up in arms over a proposal to require it.
As for the Constitution, what about the ninth amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Obviously the right to drive was, up until the several states started butting its nose in, reserved to the people. So driver’s licensing is a violation of the Constitution. The primary reason this last sentence will be seen as absurd is that everyone is used to the automotive regulations.
First, the German government forced drivers to be licensed on pain of arrest. Then the German government confiscated their Jewish citizens’ driver’s licenses (December 1938). This made the round-ups easier. If the US didn’t already have driver’s licensing, this is sort of repulsive argumentation I fear the American Automobile Association would make. Instead we hear much the same from the gun lobby.
Oh, well, of course I knew! Who could not know that? I mean, if someone is in their later youth and has a history of chemical enthusiasm, you could easily ignore such a lapse. But not otherwise.
But it still seems to me that if someone is going to shelter an argument against gun regulation under the Constitution, they can’t in fairness sidle up to absolutism as a support if they must acknowledge that such absolutism is no longer considered reasonable, if indeed it ever was.
Kinda my point to John, above. We regulate all manner of property for social good. Yes, the right to bear arms is explicitly stated, the right to own a car is not specifically stated, nor the right to governance of your own body. Doesn’t matter, they’re all in that big ol’ basket with the #9 on it.
But unless we take those words in the 2nd as rock-solid Gospel…Thou Shalt Not!..then the mere fact that guns are mentioned does not afford them any more special status than a car. Its says we won’t infringe, but we do, and that’s that.