This is easy. Change the Bill of Rights to state that it is our right to own guns. Leave out anything that can be challenged. This will stop the Supreme Court from ever addressing this again. In fact, add in the idea that the Supreme Court “cannot address it again”.
I agree with the author of the article overall. I disagree with a small technicality of the argument though. The author claims that the Second Amendment is primarily about ones right to overthrow an oppressive governemnt. I disagree with this from the aspect that such a right was only given as an example of the reason for guaranteeing the right to bear arms which the people of the time would recognize aznd agre with, but not the only reason.
The part of the overall debate that I’m still mulling over is where do we draw the line. At what point is a weapon too powerful to be considered personal protection or necessary for ensuring civil liberties? If the police have automatic weapons and become puppets in a fascist regime, then in order to have the ability to overthrow the civil authorites the citizens would need at least the same. Or to escalate this into the realm of the ridiculous, what about nukes? Well a nuke would probably be overkill and take out far more than just the leaders of a government. The line has to be somewhere between a pea shooter and a nuclear weapon, but where and why?
That's a ridiculous headline.
Heller has been affirmed. RKBA upheld. Whew! Close one, that. Five/four decision of course. But what if it had gone the other way? No doubt there would have been a lot of posts here on FR expressing ourage. But what else? Does anyone think there would have been any more reaction than just talk?
I wonder if this affects the restrictions on carry that is allowed by issuing judges in New York State.
It is common for judges to issue cc permits but restricted to “hunting and target” and NOT for selof-protection or self-defense.
That practice seems unconstitutional but it is very common in New York.
I hope someone challenges that infringement in a NY court.
The militia is the people. A militia is not well regulated without a means to resist.
Gun is a MAN MADE right. Even freedom of religion is a man made right.
“At issue is whether the Bill of Rights empowers the state to organize an army to keep you subdued or whether it guarantees you the right to arm yourself against the oppression of the state.”
This is absolutely correct although I prefer the word tyranny to oppression. (a minor point)
The bill of rights is intended to empower ‘the people’.
These rights are NOT bestowed upon ‘the people’(that’s us)by the state.
Contrarily, it is the people that bestows power upon the state.
At the very beginning of our Constitution it says:
‘We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, ...’
The State is intended to be a servant of ‘the people’ NOT the other way around.
A ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people,..” (Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address)
To the extent the State no longer represents the people, to the extent the State subverts the bill of rights, to THAT (aforementioned)extent the state has become tyrannical, in that it is misusing the power that we the people have bestowed upon it.
... And yes, the right to self defense is natural (some may argue God Given)and self evident.
The founding fathers show an understanding of natural law (extending from God) when they used the term ‘inalienable rights’ — in the Declaration of Independence.
STE=Q