Quote:
Originally Posted by Lutherf
If I might be so bold, the US Constitution serves two purposes. First, it establishes a purpose for having a central government to manage affairs between the states as well as affairs of common interest to all the states. Second, it mandates a certain structure for that government and restricts the powers that the central government shall be allowed to have. Basically it is an acknowledgement by the several states that, in the interests of mutual security and the prospects for international prosperity, there should be a central government BUT that the central government should be closely watched and held accountable by the states lest it become oppressive.
The US Constitution grants no rights to the citizens but, rather, was designed to protect the natural rights of the citizens from intrusion by the government. It is an expression of "negative rights" (those which exist without regard to government) rather than "positive rights" (those which government bestows upon the people). For example, the 13th Amendment does not grant a right of individual liberty. It merely proscribes the government from restricting that right. In this same way the 2nd Amendment proscribes the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Now, from a practical standpoint, there will be times where the unlimited exercise of personal choice by one person has a negative impact on the free exercise of rights by another. That is where the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments come in; all of which limit the actions government can take if and when the time comes to restrict a person's liberty. These Amendments prohibit the broad restriction of any natural right and generally mandate that reasonable cause be given before a right can be restricted.
If we view the 2nd Amendment through the filter of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments it becomes clear that broad restrictions WITHOUT PROPER CAUSE would be unconstitutional. In 1934 Congress passed the National Firearms Act which was an attempt to establish such "proper cause" especially with regard to fully automatic weapons. The law was challenged in US v Miller (1939) and some specifics to "proper cause" were established. The Miller decision was a total sham but, precedent being what it is, has yet to be completely overturned. The US courts have been, are, and likely will continue to be, unduly influenced by public opinion.
|
I see the 2nd Amendment quote "
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." as a clear historical anachronism when applied to the individual citizen and, as I argued in my earlier posts, should be ignored in the context of today's society. Of course this all depends on how you interpret the commas in the quote
I see it as the "people" being part of the "well regulated militia" hence the historical anachronism.
So, what that leaves us with is the *nature* of the weapons that the citizen should be authorised to own, or to put in the inverse wording of your argument, the weapons that he/she should be not be allowed to own.
There is already a line in the sand, a precedent agreed and implemented, namely fully automatic weapons. What I personally think the US needs now, in light of the recent events relating to mass murder by semi/"modified to near full" automatic weapons is a redrawing of that line in the sand.
The line is there, just move it. The precedent is set and uncontested so with the consensus of the majority, it seems sensible to move the line and save lives. Saving lives seems a "proper cause" .. I know of no better one.
I have not seen, so far, a well argued position on why someone *needs* a semi automatic weapon for personal use at home. Needs one .. not wants one ...