No other constitutional right is as heavily-regulated as the Second Amendment. The idea that one needs to ask permission from the government before exercising a constitutionally-protected right is anathema the entire concept of inherent rights.
And libs (I count myself as one) are constantly posting arguments as if gun ownership in not a right. It is. And the courts agree, and have historically.
Doesn’t matter if one likes it or not, it’s a fact.
And for my fellow libs, I have questions: Just how limited do you want this right if Trump wins again? Still want a national registry? Do you know what a Brown Shirt was?
How about the fact that women, POC and LGBT folks are the largest gun buying demographic? Are those the people you imagine when you hear “gun owner”?
I can go on about how silly and ineffective gun legislation tends to be, even if it sounds “common sense” to those who don’t understand the details. But all Democrats are doing is tossing votes to the wind. If they would give up the gun grabbing, they would landslide every election.
I just want the cops to do their fucking jobs once in a while and actually write shit up. How many times has there been a school shooting and the perp was very fucking well known to law enforcement, but still legally bought a firearm because nothing showed up on the background check?
Gimme that and federal law that holds adults responsible for unsecured firearms that their kids get a hold of and I think I’ll be content.
Despite the comment I just posted articulating how the second amendment is muddy. I agree with you, it’s time to drop the gun grabbing tone and focus on other strategies.
If you were making this argument about the right to protest no one would have a problem agreeing with you which indicates they are downvoting you because they don’t want what you are saying to be true. There is nothing wrong with logic of your statement. People too often let what they want to be true color their interpretation of what actually is true.
In this case the truth is that you’re absolutely correct, explicitly enumerated constitutional rights should not be infringed by anything other than a constitutional amendment. If someone is bothered by the 2nd amendment they should be advocating for an amendment to change it.
I understand that passing something like that is a practical impossibility and therefore quite frustrating for advocates of stricter gun control, but trying to bypass that process can only open the door for much more insidious restrictions. In other words, if we allow the 2nd amendment to have additional terms and conditions added to it what is stopping a second term Donald Trump presidency from using that precedent to limit free speech or the rights of a free press? We have enough to be concerned about with a second Trump presidency without giving him a clear legal path to bypassing constitutional amendments.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. The second amendment has been “infringed upon” for roughly a century because it isn’t as straight forward as second amendment advocates claim.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That doesn’t say:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Which is what a lot of second amendment advocates wish it says.
If you read the sentence:
With the impending meteor, we must have daily meetings for safety.
it’s pretty clear the meteor is a factor.
The United States did not have a standing army when the second amendment was ratified. So this could be interpreted more as “the people have a right to security from threats to their freedoms foreign and domestic.”
Now that said, it’s true (to my knowledge) that the founding fathers were not opposed to violent revolution in the face of a tyrannical government. So the “militia” portion of that really just muddies the waters.
It’s also quite possible that many of the people downvoting me are Europeans or Canadians or something. Keep in mind that the US remains to this day somewhat of a novelty in its approach to rights. In most other democracies, rights are not considered inherent, but are rather granted to citizens by the government. In the US, rights are considered inherent, and the Bill of Rights actually limits the Government rather than grants said rights to the people.
They need these rights to exist on some untouchable level so they can block progress but of course, calling something a “right” doesn’t instantly make it moral.
The people who wrote the constitution had the right to own slaves. Would the 2A crowd be defending slavery if it was in the constitution? Probably, but we wouldn’t let them get away with it, no matter how much slave traders donated to Republicans.
No other constitutional right is as heavily-regulated as the Second Amendment. The idea that one needs to ask permission from the government before exercising a constitutionally-protected right is anathema the entire concept of inherent rights.
And libs (I count myself as one) are constantly posting arguments as if gun ownership in not a right. It is. And the courts agree, and have historically.
Doesn’t matter if one likes it or not, it’s a fact.
And for my fellow libs, I have questions: Just how limited do you want this right if Trump wins again? Still want a national registry? Do you know what a Brown Shirt was?
How about the fact that women, POC and LGBT folks are the largest gun buying demographic? Are those the people you imagine when you hear “gun owner”?
I can go on about how silly and ineffective gun legislation tends to be, even if it sounds “common sense” to those who don’t understand the details. But all Democrats are doing is tossing votes to the wind. If they would give up the gun grabbing, they would landslide every election.
I just want the cops to do their fucking jobs once in a while and actually write shit up. How many times has there been a school shooting and the perp was very fucking well known to law enforcement, but still legally bought a firearm because nothing showed up on the background check?
Gimme that and federal law that holds adults responsible for unsecured firearms that their kids get a hold of and I think I’ll be content.
Right? There should be zero new gun regulations until law enforcement actually starts enforcing the ones already on the books.
Despite the comment I just posted articulating how the second amendment is muddy. I agree with you, it’s time to drop the gun grabbing tone and focus on other strategies.
If you were making this argument about the right to protest no one would have a problem agreeing with you which indicates they are downvoting you because they don’t want what you are saying to be true. There is nothing wrong with logic of your statement. People too often let what they want to be true color their interpretation of what actually is true.
In this case the truth is that you’re absolutely correct, explicitly enumerated constitutional rights should not be infringed by anything other than a constitutional amendment. If someone is bothered by the 2nd amendment they should be advocating for an amendment to change it.
I understand that passing something like that is a practical impossibility and therefore quite frustrating for advocates of stricter gun control, but trying to bypass that process can only open the door for much more insidious restrictions. In other words, if we allow the 2nd amendment to have additional terms and conditions added to it what is stopping a second term Donald Trump presidency from using that precedent to limit free speech or the rights of a free press? We have enough to be concerned about with a second Trump presidency without giving him a clear legal path to bypassing constitutional amendments.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. The second amendment has been “infringed upon” for roughly a century because it isn’t as straight forward as second amendment advocates claim.
That doesn’t say:
Which is what a lot of second amendment advocates wish it says.
If you read the sentence:
it’s pretty clear the meteor is a factor.
The United States did not have a standing army when the second amendment was ratified. So this could be interpreted more as “the people have a right to security from threats to their freedoms foreign and domestic.”
Now that said, it’s true (to my knowledge) that the founding fathers were not opposed to violent revolution in the face of a tyrannical government. So the “militia” portion of that really just muddies the waters.
It’s also quite possible that many of the people downvoting me are Europeans or Canadians or something. Keep in mind that the US remains to this day somewhat of a novelty in its approach to rights. In most other democracies, rights are not considered inherent, but are rather granted to citizens by the government. In the US, rights are considered inherent, and the Bill of Rights actually limits the Government rather than grants said rights to the people.
deleted by creator
What exactly makes these rights inherent? Because some dude wrote it down?
They need these rights to exist on some untouchable level so they can block progress but of course, calling something a “right” doesn’t instantly make it moral.
The people who wrote the constitution had the right to own slaves. Would the 2A crowd be defending slavery if it was in the constitution? Probably, but we wouldn’t let them get away with it, no matter how much slave traders donated to Republicans.
Sounds like the constitution needs changing then.