@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:Surely the most FUNDAMENTAL and un-alienable right (as Thomas Jefferson put it),
is the right to effectively defend your life from the predatory violence of man or beast.
Frank Apisa wrote:If you say so!
Which right is MORE fundamental
than the right to fight back against predatory violence??
Please tell me that? The right to have a census @ ten years?
Remember the USSC holding in the
CRUIKSHANK case
qua fundamental rights and the First and Second Amendments?
The fundamental rights, as I see them, David...are the "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This incredible insistence on the part of some for the rights conferred under the 2nd Amendment...seems to be interfering with all three of those fundamental "rights."
More guns equal more violence...no matter how you rationalize. We have more guns BY FAR than any of the other industrialized nations...and we are BY FAR the most violent of the industrialized nations.
Perhaps this right to protect ourselves from violence can best be obtained by having fewer guns around. In other words...you may be correct that that "right" is "the most fundamental"...but the reasoning that follows may be very defective.
Quote:
DAVID wrote:Authority to interfere with that right was NEVER granted to any government
within the geografical USA; not federal, not state, not local.
Frank Apisa wrote:I doubt you are correct here.
In that case, will u be good enuf to cite to where
Constitutional authority was granted to any government federal, state, or local
to interfere with the citizen's right to defend himself from getting killed???
As I mentioned, David, you are a lawyer. Do you, as a lawyer, know of any cases decided by the SCOTUS that limited firearm ownership in any way.
If you do...then that is your answer.
Why would you want a layman to set it out for you?
Quote:
DAVID wrote:Only naked USURPATION of fraudulent and un-Constitutional authority
can enact gun control.
Frank Apisa wrote:You do not determine what is and what is not Constitutional, David.
The SCOTUS does that.
Yeah?? I thawt that the
Authors of the Constitution did that.
If the USSC ruled that upon the basis of the 19th Amendment,
women cannot vote, then the court wud not be doing its job
(like a bank teller who sneaks a wad of money into his pants).
Women wud still have a Constitutional right to vote,
but that right wud be
VIOLATED by the derelict court,
the same as a mugging victim retains his right to
NOT be robbed
in the street, but that right is
violated by his mugger, tho it still exists.
See what I mean, Frank ?
Frankly, David...no I do not.
I will respectfully stick with my contention that YOU do not determine what is or is not Constitutional...but the SCOTUS can.
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote: And the SCOTUS has made many rulings that seem to directly contradict you.
O, really ??
HOW many?? Which ones were those?? Please indicate.
I (respectfully) disagree with u.
As I mentioned, David, you are a lawyer. Do you, as a lawyer, know of any cases decided by the SCOTUS that limited firearm ownership in any way.
If you do...then that is your answer.
If you are saying that the SCOTUS has never upheld a law limited in any way the right to weapons...I stand corrected.
Is that what you are suggesting?
[quote[
DAVID wrote:Let any supporter of authoritarianism disprove that
by citation to competent authority of the time.
David
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:You are a lawyer, David. Has the SCOTUS ever affirmed any gun restriction laws?
Yes, but in light of
HELLER and
MILLER
the filosofical rug has been pulled out from under those few decisions.
The future will take care of them.
My (posted) point was that the authoritarians cannot point to anywhere
in the US Constitution that government is granted the authority to interfere.
David
Once again, you are a lawyer and know much more about how the legal system works in this country. If you are saying that the SCOTUS has no standing to rule on whether or not certain laws that might restrict gun ownership...I will have to take your word for it...and stand corrected.
Is that what you are saying?