You never hear of Newton’s 4th law?
For every gun control advocate, there are 10 equal and opposite gun rights enthusiasts.
Please do me a favor and explain why you think the standard of review is relevant, since you have already conceded that I have the right to run a meth lab.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
You never hear of Newton’s 4th law?
For every gun control advocate, there are 10 equal and opposite gun rights enthusiasts.
[/QUOTE]
That’s Remington’s Law. 
[QUOTE=Lumpy]
…Congress could pass a law banning anything, the way the British Parliament can.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: parlimentary supremacy is no longer absolute, thanks to the EUCHR.
In the discussion of legitimate powers of government, the power of Congress to impact pre-existing, never surrendered, fundamental right is as impotent as Congress’ power to modify a physical force.
Okay, that’s a more sensible formulation. Now, what is fundamental about the right to keep and bear arms? Has it existed in every society? Have we always enjoyed it? If not, on what other basis would you characterize it as a fundamental right?
Before that, was there a fundamental right to drop big rocks on the heads of rival tribesmen?
It is? That’s exactly how I read his earlier post.
All human rights are social constructs. Physical laws are not. I can’t believe we’re comparing gravity with gun ownership…
Right, but now he’s allowing that Congress can take away rights, it just can’t do it legitimately. His previous post implied that Congress was physically incapable of taking away a right.
Rights don’t physically exist, so they can’t be physically removed. His earlier post was perfectly clear.
Okay, then it was retarded.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give us the right to keep and bear arms, and wasn’t necessary…but my questions about amending said useless document in an attempt to strengthen it shows me to be a dangerous character out to steal liberty.
At this point am I supposed to climb back out of the rabbit hole, jump through the looking glass, or click my ruby slippers together?
See now if you really were a gun rights supporter you would have taken this opportunity to explain what a fundamental right is, the foundation of a fundamental right’s protection and the extent of that protection under the US Constitution. . .
But we don’t get that from you do we?
We can’t all be long-winded and tightly wound.
Yeah, that must be it.
Hold up right there. The 2nd Amendment is ALREADY open for revision, and has been since day one. It’s called Article V.
I’m with RNATB. Can you produce this list of
that cannot be legitimately taken away? Who wrote it? From what does it derive?
I feel like I have a pre-existing, never surrendered, fundamental right to kick a guy in the shorts without retaliation if he makes eye contact.
You need a new hobby.
I find the ones I have amusing enough at present. Thank you for your interest in me, though.
No power was ever granted to Congress to impact the people engaging in chemistry or heating things to change their structure.
If government enacted a law forbidding any person from owing or using beakers, distillation tubes, flasks and Bunsen burners, that would fail because that does not serve a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner (strict scrutiny). A law forbidding people to use those items to create a “harmful” drug would pass constitutional muster because that prohibition does serve a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner (accepting on its face the government’s anti-drug stance for this discussion). So, you have the right to acquire, possess and use the means to manufacture meth but the right to actually do it can be limited.
Again, We the people possessed ALL power and surrendered a limited amount to government to perform certain duties. Those actions surrendered we can not claim as a right (printing our own currency, entering into treaties with foreign nations, organize and maintain our own army or navy). The opposite side of that coin is of course, what we never granted to government it can not claim as a power . . .
Everything not granted to government, (the great residuum) remains retained by the people and if the government wants a piece of it, it needs to prove it has a compelling need to do so.
Except that we grant it to the government every election. People could EASILY elect people who were anarchists, if that was what they wanted. Instead, we continue to give our sanction, by our votes, to the people who do things like regulate drugs and make up excise taxes and provide welfare.
So a law forbidding people from owning guns because they are dangerous would also be constitutional, yes? Taking it as read, of course, that the government has a compelling interest in preventing gun violence.
Article V sets out the process for amendment. It has never been used in reference to the 2nd Amendment since used to create it, . . . so the 2nd remains, as it was the day it was ratified.
No.
They are innumerable.
It was said that they are “as numerous as grains of sand upon the seashore”.
They are everything not conferred to government, again, the great residuum after powers have been conferred . . .
[INDENT] “as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and society, the doctrines of Locke, in his ‘Essay concerning the true extent and end of civil government’, and of Sidney in his ‘Discourses on Government’, may be considered as those generally approved by your fellow citizens of this, [Virginia] and the United States.” Thomas Jefferson[/INDENT]
It is an old adage here that your rights end where another man’s nose begins (or in your case, his ass).