And you are, IMO, dodging. Unable or unwilling to answer other equally difficult questions of teh supposed States Rights to Ban-as-Regulation that you've put forward.
Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs
I'll ask again, can a State ban abortion, civil rights, voting or speech as a way to "regulate" those things or not Wisnton? No more dodges, answer this direct and sapecific question please.
What other items can be banned as a form of "regulation" that are rights Winston?
And to answer your question, the original intent of the Militia and Right to Bear arms portion are related, but not mutually-co-dependant as your argument makes out. There is a ; in the middle for a reason. Others (i.e. professionals) can explain the minutia of language behind that break, the ;, far better than an average public-educated yokel like I, if you actually wish to educate yourself on it. I doubt you do, but it's out there in e-land if you wish. I won't butcher it by trying to explain it here.
Yes, the right for an individual to bear arms (meaning guns) is a personal rights issue, related to, but not dependant upon, the existence of a State Militia.
Is it merely a personal rights issue?
Doesn't the State have the right to interpret that?
It can write any Law it wishes, but interpritation is a Suprme Court (or has become a Supreme Court) role in our system, rightly or wrongly.
And you have chosen to come down of "Ban" = "Regulation", a position I reject wholesale, and a position thus far it seems you reserve for only ONE of our rights, conveniently and hypocritically the bigegst right the left wishes to destroy.
It's not so clear at all. You can come down on this in lots of different ways.
I am a strong supporter of REAL reasonable regulation of rights, from guns to voting. I am not in favor of what I see as intellectual dishoenst, labeling a total ban as "regulation", which it clearly is not. It's a ban.
A rephrasing of "the living document" theory, eh?
The Constitution doesn't protect us from Tyranny it only protects us from what we agree it protects us from.
One dealt with many times here over the years, and I have no taste for it now. Suffice to say, I reject the idea wholesale. If the Constitution has no specific, inherant, meaning based upon the agreed upon meaning of terms at teh time it was written, then it is a meaningless document, and we a lawless baseless nation with a Govt. of unlimited power and authority, made of individuals who have no rights outside what teh State permits at any given moment. I reject that idealogy. It's disgusting to me, as are any who would support it. I can only wish such individuals start having their favored rigths taken away from them.
Liberalism in as concise a way as it can be described.
Individual freedom doesn't exist
Collectivism/Society > Individual
Whatever a liberals says is good for all, is what should be.
In this case, a problem exists. Illegal guns used illegally.
Your answer is one I see as Tyrany and the removal of freedom. You ban the right from all, to stop a tiny some.
I cannot find any agreement with thatw ay of thinking Winston. It remains my belief that uyou have no right to take awy mine because of teh actions of others the beloved All-Powerful Govt. is unable to control or refuses to enforce laws against.
Like so many things, I don't agree that I should suffer so others can seek an easy, lazy answer to problems I did not cause and play no part in.