Reply to Children Sacrificed to Pay for Easy Access to Guns

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Children Sacrificed to Pay for Easy Access to Guns"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote] It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something.[/quote]
Exactly what right of yours is being sacrificed by requiring gun registration?

None whatsoever.  Quit your whining.[/quote]

Per the ninth amendment of the US constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Taken together, it's clear that everything not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the constitution, is a right that the state/people have. It's therefore my right to not have to register my ownership of a gun because the constitution and the US code does not give the Federal government the ability to perform gun registration. [/quote]

So we should read "well regulated" out of the Bill of Rights in its entirety (just like "militia") because ... ya know ... it's the Second Amendment, which has only been interpreted to afford a private right to gun ownership for the past six years by SCOTUS.  Ya know, unlike the First Amendment which has been interpreted in a manner to restrict freedom of speech, assembly and religion, or Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment [/quote]

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the individual right to own guns didn't exist until SCOTUS provided an opinion on the subject? You can't be seriously trying to argue this point, but I can't find any other meaning from what you are trying to write above. [/quote]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html[/quote]

You are reading too much into one aspect of the decision of the Miller case. The opinions of that case clearly indicates:

"...the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time...."

Therefore a Militia clearly was simply a term that refereed to a group of ordinary individuals, each with an individual right to bear arms. This is in contrast to an organized force such as the police, which has collective rights and privileges not available to private individuals. The self supplied nature of the guns clearly indicated that the ownership of the guns were private and individual in nature.

Still, even if Miller had came right out and said "Second Amendment gives no individual right to own guns", this still does not change the fact that any such opinion was overturned by the Heller decision, which affirmed the individual right to own guns. Overturning a prior decision does not create rights out of thin air, it simply means that the previous interpretation that there was no right was wrong: the right was always there regardless of the wrong decision.

In more clear terms, the judicial system does not create laws, it interprets them. It cannot create anything. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics