Originally Posted by
BoringGuy45
So the liberal judges admitted that AR-15s are protected by the Constitution (and, we can safely assume, most other semi-auto weapons). BUT, they also ruled that the government can simply ignore the Constitution whenever they claim they need to do so. In other words, the Constitution is like the Pirates Code in Pirates of the Caribbean: More like guidelines rather than actual rules. I can't see how the conservative/originalists on current court, even Roberts, would agree with a ruling like this.
It was a blessing that the SC did not take this case when it came before them, as with the then 4-4 bench, this whole ruling would have been upheld. It wouldn't be the end of civilian ARs; it would be the end of all our rights.
I think this is the tact that they will play. Yes we have the right, but we can restrict that right. Now if you can add restrictions on rights so that the right is meaningless, what is the use of the Constitution. Obviously, there is a balance there. The left's favorite argument revolves around the 1A and is that you can't yell "Fire' in a crowded theater, you can't call for violence, you can't perjure, slander, or libel someone. Look at all of these restrictions, in the name of 'safety' and fairness.
That is a pretty weak argument, since there is no real limit to what you could say is a potentially legitimate restriction on firearms in the name of safety. Firearms are meant to, designed for, and used to kill people; words are not. If preventing death by firearms is your goal, the only way to achieve that is through getting rid of them all. And what right is protected then? The restrictions around 'free speech' are about the misuse of the right. By all means make it illegal to threaten people with a gun, kill (unjustly) people with a gun, restrict people like felons from guns. The last one goes far further than any 1A restriction.
Actually, I got a bit wordy and off-track. I really think that we need to (and I am guilty of it too at times) saying that the collectivists assault on the 2A takes away our rights. It does not. We have that right whether the 2A held holy or thrown in the garbage. We never so clearly had the right that is explained in the 2A as when the govt tries to take away our ability to exercise that right.
Originally Posted by
ABNAK
Something I posted in the other thread:
Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.
In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances.
Fights are won by sneaky bastards, wars are won by brave, smart, sneaky bastards- and then you write the history.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Bookmarks