That's not necessarily honest is it?
Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
That's not necessarily honest is it?
I noticed that, in order to make the modern version comport with his interpretation, Mr. Copperud added the wqord "since", to subordinate the first clause to the second. The original lacks such subordination.
Also, why would this right be the only one containing a justification, out of all the rights listed in the first 10? Stylistically, it does not fit.
Given his answer, it was a fair question.
and perhaps a woman does not have a right to privacy of her own body, or does she?
and yes, what about that 3/5's solution?
and yes, what about that 3/5's solution?
He didn't say that in order for his interpretation to be correct the change in language would be needed, he said that if it were written today it might be worded somewhat differently to reflect common speech.
To me the more impressive part of the article is this quote: [QUOTE]"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
[/QUOTE]
If that were the second amendment would you argue that people should not own books because the amendment only protects the right of a school to own books? Assuming, of course, there was some reason why part of the population wanted to take away people's privately owned books.
I'm not sure what the privacy issue you're referring to is.
Obviously the 3/5ths solution was not appropriate.
You're not going to catch me arguing this on the basis of history or politics. This issue, to me, is one of principle. A person has the right to protect them self. I don't have to trust the local police to protect me at their convenience or to whatever extent they chose. I might be expendable in another person's eyes, but I'm not in my own eyes, so I assume I have the greatest motivation and interest in protecting myself.
I agree with you completely about how inconsitent conservatives are on these types of issues, but what's your opinion about this?
Yes, I'm aware of how he justified his alteration.
I suppose I'm less easily impressed by fictional examples.
"A mobile population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read cars, shall not be infringed."
I guess that means we shouldn't be licensing cars or drivers, either?
Actually, the noun in your example is "electorate", not "school". Yes, that could easily be interpreted as saying the purpose of having free books was to inform voters.
Having been mugged once (I still have the dent in my skull), and having heard a friend be shot outside my back door (in the arm, fortunately), I can say this much: having a gun would not have helped in either situation, and could have made them a lot worse. If we regulated guns better than we regulated cars (yearly licensing, including passing a couple of basic written and operational tests), I would have no problem with the licensed people owning guns.
So then, the right to defend your self would be conditional? Some people would posses the right while others would be deemed unworthy. That's not in accordance with what I see as an individual right. I don't think rights are bestowed upon us by our government.
I agree with you that guns don't provide a magical force field. I own several guns, but due to having a young son I don't keep any of them at the ready. They are completely worthless to me as a defensive tool. Even if I did have them somewhat at the ready I'm very aware that it wouldn't protect me from many threats.
Well, you got me there. You're right.
First, I want to say you sound like a responsible gun owner.I'm glad you don't need licensing and testing in order to understand the threats to your children.
Let me try this analogy:
Mobility is a right, having a particular tool to enable mobility (e.g., a car) is not necessarily a right.
Self-defense is a right, having a particular tool to enable self-defense (e.g., a handgun) is not necessarily a right.
I think that we probably even agree on that (if you don't, I suggest replacing "handgun" with "bazooka" and seeing if you perhaps agree then).
Everyone should have the right to prepare for self-defense in a manner that is safe for the community, as well as themselves. The fight is not over that right, but a particular implementaion of that right (handguns). I think we even agree handguns are more dangerous to bystanders than learning martial arts and less dangerous than bazookas. So, using rhetoric along the lines of 'denying the right to defend yourself' clouds the issue, rather than clarifying it.
Let me try this analogy:
Mobility is a right, having a particular tool to enable mobility (e.g., a car) is not necessarily a right.
Self-defense is a right, having a particular tool to enable self-defense (e.g., a handgun) is not necessarily a right.
I think that we probably even agree on that (if you don't, I suggest replacing "handgun" with "bazooka" and seeing if you perhaps agree then).
Everyone should have the right to prepare for self-defense in a manner that is safe for the community, as well as themselves. The fight is not over that right, but a particular implementaion of that right (handguns). I think we even agree handguns are more dangerous to bystanders than learning martial arts and less dangerous than bazookas. So, using rhetoric along the lines of 'denying the right to defend yourself' clouds the issue, rather than clarifying it.