Helmetcase
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 706
The ACLU's argument is problematic for a few reasons. Firstly, it's a lousy slipperly slope--if you concede that some restrictions are reasonable, why aren't ALL restrictions reasonable? They make no clear distinction between acceptable and unacceptable restrictions.
The bazookas and nukes argument is tired, they should be embarassed for even thinking it would fly. No real need to rehash here, but presumable the readership here can discern between "arms" and "explosives". Arms were clearly meant to mean handheld devices for projecting force and protecting oneself. Today's AR15 is yesterday's musket.
Indeed, if the SHTF, very few would likely argue we don't have the right to put explosive devices together to protect ourselves from tyrants.
They conspicuously ignore the salient parts of Miller, S.397 from a couple years ago (I personally lend more creedence to what elected legislatures have to say anyway, don't you?), the 5th ckt's Emerson, the Moore case, some other cases that have mentioned in dicta the RKBA as an individual right, etc.
They're also wrong that you don't have the right to an M16 or an M4--you do, you just have to front the $$$$$$$$$$ for the Class 3. I could have bought an M4 with the grenade launcher last weekend at the gun show...but I didn't have $24,500 with me that day. Bummer...guess I need to liquidate that Swiss bank account.
The point I'd take away is this--there are reasonable restrictions on the 1st A as well--you can't threaten the the POTUS, threaten to kill your wife, yell fire in a theatre, etc. The fact that there are such strictures in place hardly means your 1A rights don't exist. The same is true for the 2A--just because society at large has largely accepted that the govt can impose some reasonable regulations (most of which aren't all that reasonable when you look at them closely, I'll grant you) doesn't mean the core principle conferred by the 2A doesn't exist.
If the Founders wanted the 2A to say "the states have the right to form a militia"....it would have bloomin said that. :banghead: :banghead:
The bazookas and nukes argument is tired, they should be embarassed for even thinking it would fly. No real need to rehash here, but presumable the readership here can discern between "arms" and "explosives". Arms were clearly meant to mean handheld devices for projecting force and protecting oneself. Today's AR15 is yesterday's musket.
Indeed, if the SHTF, very few would likely argue we don't have the right to put explosive devices together to protect ourselves from tyrants.
They conspicuously ignore the salient parts of Miller, S.397 from a couple years ago (I personally lend more creedence to what elected legislatures have to say anyway, don't you?), the 5th ckt's Emerson, the Moore case, some other cases that have mentioned in dicta the RKBA as an individual right, etc.
They're also wrong that you don't have the right to an M16 or an M4--you do, you just have to front the $$$$$$$$$$ for the Class 3. I could have bought an M4 with the grenade launcher last weekend at the gun show...but I didn't have $24,500 with me that day. Bummer...guess I need to liquidate that Swiss bank account.
The point I'd take away is this--there are reasonable restrictions on the 1st A as well--you can't threaten the the POTUS, threaten to kill your wife, yell fire in a theatre, etc. The fact that there are such strictures in place hardly means your 1A rights don't exist. The same is true for the 2A--just because society at large has largely accepted that the govt can impose some reasonable regulations (most of which aren't all that reasonable when you look at them closely, I'll grant you) doesn't mean the core principle conferred by the 2A doesn't exist.
If the Founders wanted the 2A to say "the states have the right to form a militia"....it would have bloomin said that. :banghead: :banghead:
