View Single Post
Old 03-07-2018, 17:26   #77
ianch99
cf.mega poster
 
ianch99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,398
ianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze array
ianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze array
Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas View Post
Basically (to get right to the point) in arguing that the right is not granted by the constitution but that the document restricts what the government can do is a very big legal distinction.

The second amendment states:

Now I could keep talking about this for days but in quick terms (even the topic does deserve a much longer reply) the rights that God has given man come from God. The US constitution forbids man (the government) from infringing upon them. Is the way the document is created. Now I am in no way saying that it is your or my God given right to own a gun - that is not what I would determine to be a basic human right (not in this day and age).

However to restrict anything, the constitution would have to explicitly state as much - it doesn't. In this instance (an amendment to the constitution states very clearly that there shall we no infringement at all by the state).

That was my point to Ianch99 ; there is a distinction (not one without a difference) that the constitution does not in any way grant the right to own a gun, it merely restricts the government from banning you bearing a gun - does that make sense?



I can't apologize enough for that comment - it was crass and unwarranted. Sometimes in arguing politics with seasonal political minds, I tended to hear arguments to the effect of "knowing what gun violence leads to the founders would still be in favor of something that carried out the lines in the DoI - because you can't have life or liberty preserved without the ability to defend it". None the less (true or not) I don't want to make excuses for my comments / try to justify them...the flippancy was inexcusable and I am sorry. I have a young daughter and I could only imagine how upset I would be if something happened to her due to gun violence. My apologies for the comment.
I think you missed the 2 points I raised:

1. to be a "well regulated Militia", as defined by the Founding Fathers, you must bear Arms that are commensurate to those of the Standing Army. If you do not, then you are not the Militia as intended in the original design and consequently are unable to use this defense to justify your wish to own near-military grade weapons.

2. you said "However to restrict anything, the constitution would have to explicitly state as much - it doesn't. In this instance (an amendment to the constitution states very clearly that there shall we no infringement at all by the state) This does not match reality I am afraid. There is a line in the sand: fully automatic weapons. The Government *does* restrict the population on the type of guns they can own. The precedent has been set, all that is being debated is where to now move it to.
__________________
Unifi Express + BT Whole Home WiFi | VM 1Gbps
ianch99 is offline   Reply With Quote