In keeping with the spirit of THR, I will try to keep this from being a rant, but I feel one coming on
I have been reseaching constitutional law lately (US law) and I feel that no one debates law, people debate feelings. It feels right to use taxpayer dollars to bailout big companies, it feels right to nationalize healthcare, and it feels right to dispose of the right to keep and bear arms. The government wants to do what they think is good for the people. However, I don't care if the government thinks it is good or not, I care if it is legal!
Now, of course I am posting at this forum. I obviously do not feel that it is right to dispose of RKBA. But people want to feel safe, right? So lets get rid of firearms!
No one considers the fact that the US constitution was EXTREMELY specific as to what the federal government can do. Although people think as the federal government as being "at the top," it was created BY THE STATES! The states have the power to do anything under the law except what powers THEY delegated to the government.
One of the most grossly incorrect opinions I've seen concerning the RKBA is the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects guns for hunting and self defense. This is blatantly incorrect! The 2nd Amendment is there because the founders knew "an armed populus has never been overthrown by their government." Of course, hunting and self defense are a result of the 2nd Amendment, but not the core purpose.
And instead of arguing this point, many gun owners argue against gun/ammo/etc bans by saying "this gun CAN be used for hunting / target shooting so it should be legal!"
Honestly, IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it can be used for hunting or self defense or target shooting or taking down an aircraft carrier (yes, that was extreme )! As far as the Constitution is concerned, the federal government CANNOT regulate firearms! The states CAN, but the federal government cannot.
As gun owners / proponents, lets argue from the same viewpoint our founding fathers argued! Of course, I am no constitutional scholar, take my opinion as just that: an opinion.
I know I promised not to rant, but thanks anyways. Yes, I used a lot of capitalizations....what can I say?
I have been reseaching constitutional law lately (US law) and I feel that no one debates law, people debate feelings. It feels right to use taxpayer dollars to bailout big companies, it feels right to nationalize healthcare, and it feels right to dispose of the right to keep and bear arms. The government wants to do what they think is good for the people. However, I don't care if the government thinks it is good or not, I care if it is legal!
Now, of course I am posting at this forum. I obviously do not feel that it is right to dispose of RKBA. But people want to feel safe, right? So lets get rid of firearms!
No one considers the fact that the US constitution was EXTREMELY specific as to what the federal government can do. Although people think as the federal government as being "at the top," it was created BY THE STATES! The states have the power to do anything under the law except what powers THEY delegated to the government.
One of the most grossly incorrect opinions I've seen concerning the RKBA is the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects guns for hunting and self defense. This is blatantly incorrect! The 2nd Amendment is there because the founders knew "an armed populus has never been overthrown by their government." Of course, hunting and self defense are a result of the 2nd Amendment, but not the core purpose.
And instead of arguing this point, many gun owners argue against gun/ammo/etc bans by saying "this gun CAN be used for hunting / target shooting so it should be legal!"
Honestly, IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it can be used for hunting or self defense or target shooting or taking down an aircraft carrier (yes, that was extreme )! As far as the Constitution is concerned, the federal government CANNOT regulate firearms! The states CAN, but the federal government cannot.
As gun owners / proponents, lets argue from the same viewpoint our founding fathers argued! Of course, I am no constitutional scholar, take my opinion as just that: an opinion.
I know I promised not to rant, but thanks anyways. Yes, I used a lot of capitalizations....what can I say?