McTag wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
Fine. If you were even one of us, you could try to get part of our Bill of Rights rescinded by Constitutional amendment. But until that happens, the courts should protect the rights that the Founders actually did give us.
After that, you could work on speech, religion, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. Yes, you could give up to the government all of our rights in the name of common security. However, we're talking about the law as it is now. Our Founders believed that the inherent, self-evident right to personal liberty implied directly the right to self-defense. Sorry. But you can turn your own government into a fascist, police state if it makes you feel better.
I still think there is more than a wee bit of obfuscation and disingenuousness in these answers. Self-delusion too. I don't mean to be rude, but sometime you're going to have to face this problem. Why not now?
A government does not have to be a fascist police state to want to control handguns. Most in fact do that very thing, those in the First World at any rate. A wee bit paternalistic, maybe, more hands-on, in the interest of the greater good.
First of all, my central point is that the 2nd amendment says what it obviously says, that the government may not make any laws limiting the right of the people to own and carry arms. I wouldn't matter if it said, "Guns are terrible and no one should use them, therefore, the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed," the second clause forbids the government to limit gun rights, no matter what one might speculate was the intended meaning of the first clause. Until the law is changed, the courts must support it.
Secondly, altough it's irrelevant to the Heller case, since it must be decided on the basis of existing law, I personally agree that every individual has an inherent right to self-defense. Forbidding someone to defend himself effectively is, indeed, inconsistent with freedom.
It is far, far better to err on the side of giving people too much freedom than too little. I'm glad that public office holders are required to swear that they will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, because it has an unending stream of enemies.
You just don't get it McTag
that's pretty weak coming from a liberal gun-nut :wink:
