Most of the developed world is getting along fine without Constitutionally conferred rights for gun ownership. People in most of the world are simply not attached to the idea of owning guns in the same way they are attached to genuine human rights.Actually, I do, but any call for the repeal of the 2nd is a de facto banning of firearms. It makes gun ownership subject to government power, and not a right.
So saying, “it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either”, is an intentional deception.
You are obviously deeply, deeply attached to your guns Jon.Yes. It does. A repeal might or might not lead to a ban? Can you not see how that is, de facto, a ban? The ownership no longer exists. You may have it in your possession, but you are no longer in control of it. It is now subject to government power.
First, I think you are mistakes to place those 2 “rights” in the same category. And second, not all countries gave codified rights, and this need not lead to egregious abuses.If someone were to say that we should repeal the protection of the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, that it may or may not lead to people being subject to cruel or unusual punishment, would you not agree with me that one can no longer claim that as a right?
It effectively does.I cannot see it as a de facto ban, because it is not a de facto ban. A ban, to me, means outlawing possession. I see not reasons to suspect that if there were no second amendment that the possession of guns would be outlawed.
Actually, owning property can be claimed under the 9th. But let us not mistake with the prefatory clause says: “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Note it does not say, “the state”, it says a “free state”.I don’t think that there is constitutional guaranteed that I may own a home. Nevertheless, I do own a home, and do enjoy constitutions guarantees against it being taken without due process.
Wow. It may or may not mean you are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.One could no longer claim that the right is explicitly protected in the Constitution. WHowever it would remain arguable that is fundamental human right, or a right that is given life and substance by penumbras, formed by emanations from other explicit Constitutional guarantees.
No. Not at all. I am deeply attached to my rights. All of them.You are obviously deeply, deeply attached to your guns Jon.
Let me repeat, I don’t care what other countries do. The very existence of this particular protection of a right, as well as others, is because of what other countries do or did. What they do is irrelevant.First, I think you are mistakes to place those 2 “rights” in the same category. And second, not all countries gave codified rights, and this need not lead to egregious abuses.
Then don’t pretend your arguments derive from some deep universal principle. They don’t. The 2nd was an idea written up by a bunch of guys, and the “right” to relatively free access to guns is such in America only because they did.Let me repeat, I don’t care what other countries do.
But they’re a lot easier to conceal than bales of MJ which cross the border with regularity.Not easy in America, friend. We have oceans on two side and Canada to the north. So the only semi-ready smuggler access point is Mexico and Caribbean speed boats. So small quantities (as they’re quite a bit harder to conceal than a kilo of coke).
No pretending. Remember, I believe the other countries are wrong, and violating the rights of their citizens. Hence, I don’t care what they think of what we do.Then don’t pretend your arguments derive from some deep universal principle. They don’t. The 2nd was an idea written up by a bunch of guys, and the “right” to relatively free access to guns is such in America only because they did.
Not at all the case. The current amendment - as argued in the Op-Ed and the Rolling Stone piece is seen as an impediment to all sorts of legislation that falls far short of a “ban on firearms” - even though the courts have upheld bans or certain specific arms and restrictions on magazine size under it. I don’t doubt that there are people who would like to remove the impediment from legislation that falls short of the ban that have been talking about.It effectively does.
If there is no reason to ban firearms, there is no reason to repeal the 2nd.
I used the word explicit. You might want to consider that.Actually, owning property can be claimed under the 9th
I used the word explicit. You might want to consider that.
It is supposed to be an impediment. That’s the brilliance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is an impediment to government power and tyranny.Not at all the case. The current amendment - as argued in the Op-Ed and the Rolling Stone piece is seen as an impediment to all sorts of legislation that falls far short of a “ban on firearms” - even though the courts have upheld bans or certain specific arms and restrictions on magazine size under it. I don’t doubt that there are people who would like to remove the impediment from legislation that falls short of the ban that have been talking about.
Ninth AmendmentI used the word explicit. You might want to consider that
And it is. And if repealed it is not. BTW the Rolling Stone article takes issued on that homage to brilliance.It is supposed to be an impediment.
Yes, The ninth amendment is not unknown, which is why I pointed out that the lack of explicit statements- like the second amendment does not mean that fundamental rights vanish.Ninth Amendment
Hence the reason it should not be repealed.And it is. And if repealed it is not
And it is also okay to do whatever we can, legally, to prevent such an act that subverts an individual right.BTW the Rolling Stone article takes issued on that homage to brilliance.
It is OK to amend the Consitution. That idea is part of the Constitution itself.
As someone who believes individual rights are more important than government power, I think the idea that you have a right to your house, all of your property is a worthy claim under the 9th. It is the reason I oppose civil asset forfeiture.Yes, The ninth amendment is not unknown, which is why I pointed out that the lack of explicit statements- like the second amendment does not mean that fundamental rights vanish.
And some people aren’t so attached to labels and seek to judge issues on their merits.It is really quite simple: conservatives value individual rights over government power. Progressive value government power over individual rights.
And an impediment to sensible controls over weaponry. Curiously, not to denying you machine guns, though noone can really explain that, and many gun fans vehemently oppose that, and any and all restrictions (…“shall not infringe…”).It is supposed to be an impediment. That’s the brilliance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is an impediment to government power and tyranny.
Yes, though I think many believe it is above change. Particularly if one believes that prescriptions such as the 2nd come direct from a Higher Authority.And it is. And if repealed it is not. BTW the Rolling Stone article takes issued on that homage to brilliance.
It is OK to amend the Constitution. That idea is part of the Constitution itself.
Given “rights” in your book includes the “freedom to relatively freely access, hold and carry a wide array of weaponry”, you should understand why many are in debate with you. You’ve lumped something in with “inherent human rights” that many of us think has no place there at all.As someone who believes individual rights are more important than government power,
Not labels. Philosophy. I don’t care what the names are. They just make it possible to converse.And some people aren’t so attached to labels and seek to judge issues on their merits.
No labels. Pigeon holing. “Conservative” implies holding a set of positions. Ditto “Progressive”.Not labels. Philosophy. I don’t care what the names are. They just make it possible to converse.
The philosophy matters.
Fine. But the statement loses practical utility when the makeup of the “rights” is in debate. If you mean “legal rights”, it’s clear.Individual rights are more important than collectivist power.
Do they not? Do they not hold sets of opinions? Are we not here discussing the differences in those opinions?No labels. Pigeon holing. “Conservative” implies holding a set of positions. Ditto “Progressive”.
Oh, I’m not. Rights, particularly those enumerated, are beyond discussion.They are non-negotiableFine. But the statement loses practical utility when the makeup of the “rights” is in debate. If you mean “legal rights”, it’s clear.