Not a chance I'm afraid. Totalitarianism is normally greeted with cheers and applause.
I never considered criminals so-called rights to carry as repressed.
If you add unrestricted guns to unrestricted freedom, expect unrestricted consequences. Ben Franklin warned of folks usurping freedom of expression as license to - whatever.
commerce and general welfare - two very broad clauses.
You also missed the part that says, "This here is all the laws we'll ever pass." Just kidding, you didn't miss that part. The Constitution is the legal basis to govern from not on. Besides, the less fed power you lose, the more state power you'll receive.I missed the section that said if you did x or y then you were stripped of your constitutional rights.
Where does the Constitution start, the words on the paper or some preconceived notion of natural rights? The right to form militia isn't legal forward to zero gun laws.
If you've been around guns very much you know there's some stupid shit-heads doing stupid shit with guns.
I think the act of tying the chain around the man's neck and dragging him until it ripped off was enough to constitute a hate crime. Especially when the driver admitted they killed the guy because he was black, walking down the road alone, easy to victimize - oh and they just happened to hate black people - enough to kill a random black person.
I believe it specifically says, "promote the general welfare". Not the Reagan idea of "welfare" like "welfare queen". You know, infrastructure, services, etc.
The Constitution is to govern from as much as by. The Constitution is as much the basis of subsequent laws as the law itself. The Constitution never established gun rights for anything more than revolution and nobody here's gonna resort to that degree of craziness. Every time some nut bag goes off thinking he'll start the whatever, everybody stands back and watches.
I consider this degree of opinion cruel and unusual.
Read about the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and you'll discover eight years of dysfunctional state commerce because states cannot arbitrate between themselves.The foundation is physical. The Constitution is subject to interpretation. That's why we have odd numbers of justices so we may democratically decide matters of constitutionality. No less than 38 representatives signed the Constitution and to assume they all nailed the identical concept is fleeting. These men not only compromised their wishes, they each owned a literal interpretation of what they wrote.
Amendments require at least 35 states to ratify. You might be more effective arguing constitutionality with examples instead of the wholesale approach.
Check your history and civics on that,
Might want to quantify with a constitutional scholar.
What if freedom amounts to anarchy?Freedom is the only answer.
In other words, application is where we run into matters of constitutionality and I'm cool with practical application.The 9th amendment is a fundamental constitutional guarantee that the enumerated rights 1 - 8 in the Bill of Rights are not the only rights and may not be used to limit or disparage other enumeration rights guaranteed to the individual. The right to privacy is one of those unenumerated rights of the individual.
The 10th amendment reserves to the state and PEOPLE all rights not specifically granted to the federal or state government.
Now if I have a 2nd amendment right to form a militia, and this is a constitutionally protected fundamental right; then the government has no say as to how I arm or supply my militia. Any state or federal restrictions to the 2nd amendment are unconstitutional per se, because you may not legally modify the rights granted under the constitution with out an amendment (ratified by 3/4ths of the states or 38 states of 50).
The fact that you or others don't like individuals forming militias or possessing all manner of arms doesn't usurp the constitution.
No conjecture can change the plain language of INDIVIDUAL guarantees. The fact that the country is imperfect and regularly violates the rights of individuals does not change the powerful meaning of the US Constitution and the light it shines on freedom.
9 men and women in robes have always blessed the immoral and unconstitutional actions of the other two branches of government. The fact that they belatedly come to their senses and break with precedent or invalidate a law as unconstitutional does not mean the country was acting ethically prior to the decision; the exact opposite is true, the court acknowledges the immorality of the government and upholds the right of the individual.
I see your point and gather that folks have differences of standard. If law seeks to establish practical standard as opposed to irresponsibly limiting individual freedoms, I consider it promoting the general welfare. Just my opinion.
Gabby Giffords' staff member and the civilian child might not have been killed had the gunman not carried a 31 bullet clip [and] license to buy weapons despite his history of mental illness.
I'm sure somebody's paranoid enough to think they need something like that but do we really have to make em available for psychos? If not, we may have to consider practical restrictions. (That's a rhetorical question so answer or ignore at will.)
You want reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment (no 31 bullet clips, no 2nd amendment rights for certain bad guys, etc. etc.; because you believe that promotes the general welfare).
I want reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment (no christianity, no islam; because I believe those are violent organizations that have committed mass murdered for millenia).
Other people want additional reasonable restriction and before you know it we are over the tipping point and we have reasonably restricted away all the rights of our neighbors and they have reasonably eviscerated our rights.
Perhaps the authors of the constitution saw how easy it would be for the majority to reasonably limit rights UNLESS there was a specific provision requiring a super majority. Since there is a super majority required to modify the rights under the constitution; the founders REJECTED reasonable restrictions through legislation and instead REQUIRED reasonable restrictions come through AMENDMENT.
God bless AmeriKa.
