Heller ruled that people do have a fundamental right to self-defense; that handguns have been and are the tool favored by the people for that purpose, and a blanket ban on any possession of them is unconstitutional. McDonald ruled that this incorporates the Second Amendment to be binding upon the states. I’d say that’s a fairly recent re-examination of the notion that gun ownership is a fundamental right. Now if you have the supermajority necessary to amend the Constitution, be my guest you’ve earned it.
I don’t think anybody’s disputing the consensus that gun ownership is recognized as a fundamental right according to the current provisions of the Constitution. But that’s not what I’m talking about here.
The Court decisions you refer to didn’t “radically re-examine the notion of gun ownership as a fundamental Constitutional right”. They merely confirmed that the wording of the Constitution as it presently stands does indeed recognize such a right.
Yup, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. I do realize that it’s not a practical political aim at the moment, but I think ultimately it’s the right thing to do.
I don’t believe it was the Founders intent that the Rights of the People be subservient to some perceived obligation of the Government.
That is the reason for the Bill of Rights in the first place.
I think it is important that a govt. should have a fear or at least a healthy respect of its people. For a govt. to do this the people must not just have an ability to defend themselves but also provide for themselves. If a govt. does have this fear/respect then so do other govts. and that in its self is a defensive deterrent, it has played a role in keeping the people of Switzerland out of 2 world wars. In developed nations most people have lost their ability to provide for themselves outside of what they can buy with money. To give up the right for a substantial part of your civilians to have the ability to defend themselves independently, in that situation is even more dangerous(in regards to ensuring the long term freedom of future generations) than it would be on its own.
Therefore I believe as tragic as these incidences are, other options should be looked at before we(well you, I’m not American) look at changing the second amendment as the long term freedom it helps provide is likely to save more lives than the short term safety restricting guns might have.
I am a strong believer in “Freedom is never free.”
the second amendment, and the bill of rights is a red herring.
it’s really besides the point, and patriot idiots who continue claiming ‘my X amendment right’ are on the wrong track.
First of all, the Constitution, and bill of rights were not written for me, with me in mind, and I am not a party to it . (see supreme court case Barron v. Baltimore)
The bill of rights was written (pls go read it) not as a set of rules for men and women in the states, who had nothing to do w/ the fed gov, but as a set of rules for government. the 2nd says ‘shall make no law’…it’s limiting the scope and power of govt, not of what men and women could and couldnt do.
The point is that govt doesnt give anyone their rights, and talking about ‘my 1st amend right’ or whatever is implying just that. that because some men wrote something down on a parchment that i magically have these rights (as opposed to privileges), and that they can also ‘take them away’ if they see fit.
|It doesnt work this way.
We have unalienable rights given to us a birthright from God, and english-speaking peoples have had this status for over 1000 years. we don’t need a Constitution, esp. one that we were never party to, or was never intended to even do grant common people rights in the first place.
the bill of rights was inserted at the last minute under the behest of the anti-federalists like Jefferson, Mason, and esp. Henry. they were concerned they would lose their rights if they went to work for this centralized govt, and they were essentially sending in a bill, ie. ‘you owe us this; you can’t mess with this…’ (see Patrick Henry speeches at Virginia Convention, …“Who were they to call themselves ‘we the People’??”
After the Incorporation of the US under Lincoln during the civil war, the bill of rights was also ‘incorporated’ and said to apply to common people, and they became US citizens with the 14th amendment, where as up til then, they had only been state citizens, and had no business whatsoever with the fed gov unless they engaged in interstate/ international trade, or were in the armed services.
Barron v Baltimore wasn’t so much overturned, as it was ‘circumvented’, which i have questions about… it was still used as a precedent after the civil war, and incorporation, so that raises some questions about how legit ‘circumventing’ it is…
In any case, I think running to the 2ns amendment, or even the Constitution for your rights is barking up the wrong tree.
Law comes down to custom, and the custom in the english speaking world is that you can defend yourself. if anything, the anti-federalist founders only dropped something about the law by putting that in the Constitution more than anything… that you have the right to defend yourself. period.
the govt can’t have a right that you don’t have. if they have guns, you can have guns. period.
you don’t need a 2nd to give you this right, and never did, and never will, it’s a dead horse.
The gun grabbers love it when patriots run to the 2nd amendment, because they know this. they play the ‘we gave it, and we can take it away’ nonsense game on us…
and they love it when we don’t claim our rights as a birthright from God, and instead appeal to the govt of men for them. it’s a trap, and they have us trapped.
we need to wake up, that’s all it takes to ‘disarm’ this deception, this trick…
The gun used in Newtown is not the deadliest of weapons and the shooter could have used the other guns he carried to kill the students since the school provided no means of defense.
That case has nothing to do whether you are a “party” to the Constitution, it says only that state governments are not restricted by the Bill of Rights except where the BoR says so explicitly.
What do we need?
The which what who now?!
orchid, I think you really need to read up on pseudolaw. What you’re saying there about “the Incorporation of the US” sounds, or at least smells, like one of those bullshit “sovereign citizen” or “freeman on the land” arguments.
Well, first you have to overturn a scotus decision saying the gov’t has no responsibility to protect you:smack:
Limit sales and ownership to certain areas depend on population??? hahahahahahahah
OK, lets give more rights to people based on locality, like China does hahahahahahah or you mean people in rural areas have more rights then NY’ers? hahahahahahahahah