|
ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 11:06:46 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Well, this is straying off into an off topic argument, and I don't want to hijack the thread, but my problem is not with the ruling but with the idea of rights vs. privileges.
It's become common to make this distinction, you hear it in the news all the time, but their is no constitutional, legal, or even moral or ethical foundation to it.
You state the right to own a gun and use the constitution as the basis for that right. You also say I have the right to own a car. Where in the constitution does it say that? You go on to say that it is my right to own a car but it is a privilege to drive it.
Why? Don't my tax dollars pay for these roads and their maintenance?
Doesn't that by itself entitle to drive on them?
Do I have restrictions on my freedom to drive? Of course.
Do I have those same restrictions on my freedom to own a gun? Of course.
So somehow this concept of a right as opposed to a privilege becomes a little blurry for me.
Maybe good for the topic of a new thread.
I know you're talking to Archer, and I don't want to speak for him, but I do have an answer to that.
First of all, the reason you have a constititutional right to own a car is simply because the Constitution doesn't prohibit you from owning one. The Founding Fathers knew better than to try to regulate every possible activity and guarantee every possible right that might possibly emerge someday in the distant future. For the most part, they simply assume that people have the right to do whatever is not against the law. Since there is no law against owning a car, you have a constitutional right to do so.
However. That right can be, and is, regulated. In fact, constitutionally speaking, it can be taken away. For instance, in many (if not most) states, you don't have the right to own a car if it's not insured, even if you don't drive it. In many states, people with multiple drunk driving or other traffic convictions may have their right to own a car taken away. And in every state, your right to operate your legally-ownedt car on the public roads is heavily regulated, because the Constitution allows the government to apply reasonable regulations to the ownership and use of private property.
Now. How does this apply to the right to keep and bear arms? Because unlike your right to own a car, or a canoe, or a saxophone, your right to bear arms is specifically guranateed by the Constitution. Notice I said guaranteed, not granted. It's a common misinterpretation to say that the Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms. That's not what it does - what it does is guarantee the right. I know it sounds like a subtle, semantical disinction, but actually it's quite significant. It doesn't say, "the people have a right to bear arms." It says, "the people's right to bear arms will not be infringed." It assumes the right to keep and bear arms already exists; it seeks to ensure that the right will not be taken away.
The Founding Fathers knew that times change. They knew that in the years, decades, and (hopefully) centuries to come, it would occasionally become necessary for the government to regulate various activities and technologies. They understood this, and left a lot of latitude for future lawmakers to pass laws that reflected the realities of whatever times they were living in. But they considered this one right so important, they wanted to make sure nobody ever took it away. I just wish the twisted old bastards had worded it less ambiguously so we wouldn't still be arguing about what right we really do have 230 years later.
|
|
|
|
