Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
An outright ban is not a regulation. It's a ban.
You've not shown us any basis for the position that Constitutional Rights can (or should) be banned by a City or State.
Do you take the same position on say, Abortion (a non Constituional right)? Can a State regulate Abortion by banning it completely?
What about protests (speech)? Can a State "regulate" speech by banning all protest activity within it's borders?
What else can be "regulated" via a complete 100% ban, as you see it, yet is also a Constitutional or otherwsie accepted/legislated Right?
Ah, nice to see you leaving open future arguments against the right to speech. Just in case an issue arrises where you want to silence someone elses opinions, I'd suppose.
You're the one making a case that rights can be banned completely as "regulation" as determined by a City council or State legislature.
I'm the one defending individual liberty, rights and freedoms.
I know which one I see as the wanna-be-Tyrant here. Unless you're going to accuse me of being a Tyrant of Freedom, forcing rights on those who don't want them and prefer to be managed and oppressed by a States 18% voter-turnout elected officals.......
I guess we see the world differently.
You see crime, and want to punish all people for it, the innocent law abiding majority as well as the perpetrator.
I see crime, and want to punish the criminal only. I see the theft of our rights as an even greater and far reaching crime than one worthless scmbag blowing another away with an illegal gun they'd have no matter what the laws or bans or regulations are.
Need an example? Pot was 100% banned for a long while. How'd than "regulation" work out?
|
You completely ignore the State militia portion of the 2nd amendment. Is the Amendment protecting a State Militia system that's no longer in place?
Is it merely a personal rights issue? Why have the militia in there at all?
Is it something in between recognizing the persons rights but in the context of the State Militia?
Doesn't the State have the right to interpret that?
It's not so clear at all. You can come down on this in lots of different ways.
You're the one who argues about Constitutional rights. WTF are they?
The Constitution doesn't protect us from Tyranny it only protects us from what we agree it protects us from.
Individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum. People have a right to excersize free will without being assualted or in fear for their lives. That takes balance.