User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:37:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Good!
Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:48:21 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:50:11 AM EDT
[#3]
If you are old enough to fight and die for your Country then you should be old enough to buy a firearm and enjoy a beer if you want.!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:54:20 AM EDT
[#4]
I wish they would challenge the '86 machine gun ban.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:55:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY  ETA: If I ever win the lottery I'm going to take a baseball bat, have somebody carve the 9th and 10th Amendments into it, and then drive around the country beating people with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:56:14 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike You have no constitutional rights to do anything, anything at all. The Constitution sets limits on what government can do, it does *not* enumerate all the rights we have. The sooner more people get this, the better. Find me where in the Constitution you are "granted" the right to travel, the right to watch television, the right to read, the right to get married, the right to raise your kids, the right to mow your lawn, etc., etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:58:48 AM EDT
[#7]
I'm not a drinker, But If you can go die for your country at age 18 then why can't you drink at age 18?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:58:52 AM EDT
[#8]
Unpossible. The NRA never does anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:00:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
I wish they would challenge the '86 machine gun ban. Baby steps.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:03:18 AM EDT
[#10]
About time.
While there is no magic age where everyone is suddenly more responsible, 18 is normally the age of majority. So why can't otherwise eligible citizens purchase handguns at 18? What is the reasoning behind it? Are we legally adults at 18 or 21? I married at 19yo, and consider myself a mature individual. It felt pretty ridiculous to have to wait a whole 2 years before I could 1.) purchase a handgun and 2.) apply for a CCW permit to protect my family outside of the home. This shouldn't be the case. Now it did make a good excuse to build my first AR for home defense before I could purchase a handgun. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:14:11 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
If you are old enough to fight and die for your Country then you should be old enough to buy a firearm and enjoy a beer if you want.! Quoted:
I wish they would challenge the '86 machine gun ban. Amen on both counts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:14:46 AM EDT
[#12]
*fingers crossed*
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:16:17 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike The Supreme Court has already declared funded mandates are constitutional, and that is how the legal drinking age was raised to 21 so don't count on that one anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:17:00 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike You have no constitutional rights to do anything, anything at all. The Constitution sets limits on what government can do, it does *not* enumerate all the rights we have. The sooner more people get this, the better. Find me where in the Constitution you are "granted" the right to travel, the right to watch television, the right to read, the right to get married, the right to raise your kids, the right to mow your lawn, etc., etc. 100% correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:18:53 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. Any state that chooses to surrender federal highway funding can freely revert the drinking age to 18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:20:18 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. Any state that chooses to surrender federal highway funding can freely revert the drinking age to 18. Its a fucking dirtball way to do things, but that's how they operate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:21:45 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. Any state that chooses to surrender federal highway funding can freely revert the drinking age to 18. Raise it to 47 and instruct the LEOs not to enforce it if the imbiber is over 18.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:22:01 AM EDT
[#18]
in the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't really make a damned difference. wonder what the tactics are behind going after this one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:23:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Old enough to be convicted as an adult in court old enough to enjoy the rights of an adult.
The 21 year old drinking age is justified by the fact that the human brain has not fully developed in some males until the age of 21 and the chances for alcohol dependence increases if it is consumed before the brain is fully developed. At least that's the theory/justification. There is no logical argument to deny an adult citizen the right to purchase a handgun at the age of 18. None. Zip. Zilch. It's something arbitrary they've done simply to curtail firearms ownership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:24:37 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: in the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't really make a damned difference. wonder what the tactics are behind going after this one? It's a weak law so why not take it down? Besides allows more young people to become CCW holders and that has the potential to swell the ranks of the NRA and gives us more votes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:28:30 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
in the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't really make a damned difference... what? it can make the difference between life and death for a 20 year old living in a high crime area. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:35:25 AM EDT
[#22]
Long overdue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:38:45 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike I could be argued that the prohibition ammendment and its later repeal indicate there is in fact a constitutional right to imbibe which the fed.gov has no right to tamper with. States were perfectly happy with the 18 yo restriction until uncle sugar extorted them to change their laws, which to this day are in force out of fear of losing funding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:44:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
in the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't really make a damned difference. wonder what the tactics are behind going after this one? It's a weak law so why not take it down? Besides allows more young people to become CCW holders and that has the potential to swell the ranks of the NRA and gives us more votes. This is probably a case they will use to flesh out the level of scrutiny applied to 2nd Amendment cases. It's a good case for that because they aren't risking everything on a monstrously HUUUUUUGE issue if they lose. If they win, great. Either way, we get some more information about how the courts may view the bigger issues coming in future cases. Like someone already said, baby steps. ETA: Don't kill me over whether you think this is a huge issue or not. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:08:00 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike You have no constitutional rights to do anything, anything at all. The Constitution sets limits on what government can do, it does *not* enumerate all the rights we have. The sooner more people get this, the better. Find me where in the Constitution you are "granted" the right to travel, the right to watch television, the right to read, the right to get married, the right to raise your kids, the right to mow your lawn, etc., etc. Damn. Like a brother from another mother you are constantly saying what I'm thinking but with better words. Some of 'em are even high falutin' learnin' derby words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:13:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. Any state that chooses to surrender federal highway funding can freely revert the drinking age to 18. Raise it to 47 and instruct the LEOs not to enforce it if the imbiber is over 18.
Half the LEOs would enforce it just to be cock suckers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:15:08 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
in the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't really make a damned difference... what? it can make the difference between life and death for a 20 year old living in a high crime area. 18 year olds can still buy handguns. just not from an FFL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:16:09 AM EDT
[#28]
I had my first handgun before I was 21??
Nevermind.......I see it is a handgun purchased from a FFL. 
And ANOTHER .......this was a 1968 GCA law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:17:41 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. Any state that chooses to surrender federal highway funding can freely revert the drinking age to 18. They had the same issue with the 55mph speed limit if I recall. Not an insurmountable obstacle by any means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:18:04 AM EDT
[#30]
Isn't the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, which grants us certain rights? Not trying to stir shit, just curious how you can say that we aren't given any rights by the Constitution, but then the Bill of Rights which is attached to it, grants us rights such as the right to bear arms, free speech, etc. Or am I missing something?
As for the 21 age limit for handgun purchases...I wouldn't care either way if they kept it or changed it to 18. I just wish the NRA would get off it's ass and start attacking some of the bullshit anti-gun lobbying that goes on in California on a daily basis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:18:16 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
in the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't really make a damned difference. wonder what the tactics are behind going after this one? It's a weak law so why not take it down? Besides allows more young people to become CCW holders and that has the potential to swell the ranks of the NRA and gives us more votes. that was my original though - death by 1000 cuts, but in our favor finally. still seems strange to me though since there are tons of other weak and meaningless laws that would be just as good at getting tossed. like no pistol sales across state lines. i guess this could also be a case of "right defendant, right time". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:18:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. Any state that chooses to surrender federal highway funding can freely revert the drinking age to 18. Puerto Rico has |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:21:56 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
in the grand scheme of things, this law doesn't really make a damned difference. wonder what the tactics are behind going after this one? It's a weak law so why not take it down? Besides allows more young people to become CCW holders and that has the potential to swell the ranks of the NRA and gives us more votes. that was my original though - death by 1000 cuts, but in our favor finally. still seems strange to me though since there are tons of other weak and meaningless laws that would be just as good at getting tossed. like no pistol sales across state lines. i guess this could also be a case of "right defendant, right time". Taking down this law makes sense in light of Heller and McDonald Both said adults can have pistols in one's home for self defense. So it makes sense to attack this law (no pistol from FFL for 18-20 yr olds) Wonder what the Bradys will say. OK to carry an M9 in uniform but not in your home? Most pistols sales I would guess go through FFLs in some states (I.E Pennsylvania and California) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:22:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike You have no constitutional rights to do anything, anything at all. The Constitution sets limits on what government can do, it does *not* enumerate all the rights we have. The sooner more people get this, the better. Find me where in the Constitution you are "granted" the right to travel, the right to watch television, the right to read, the right to get married, the right to raise your kids, the right to mow your lawn, etc., etc. Well put! As to the purchase age, if handgun purchase age gets reduced to 18, then that opens the door wide for striking down the SBR/SBS portion of the NFA, since there would no longer be any legitimate reason for them. The only thing the short barrel restrictions currently do is prevent 18 year olds from buying concealable weapons. If an 18yo can buy handguns, then the short barrel restrictions no longer serve a purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:24:17 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike You have no constitutional rights to do anything, anything at all. The Constitution sets limits on what government can do, it does *not* enumerate all the rights we have. The sooner more people get this, the better. Find me where in the Constitution you are "granted" the right to travel, the right to watch television, the right to read, the right to get married, the right to raise your kids, the right to mow your lawn, etc., etc. Well put! As to the purchase age, if handgun purchase age gets reduced to 18, then that opens the door wide for striking down the SBR/SBS portion of the NFA, since there would no longer be any legitimate reason for them. The only thing the short barrel restrictions currently do is prevent 18 year olds from buying concealable weapons. If an 18yo can buy handguns, then the short barrel restrictions no longer serve a purpose. Not quite. Congress explicitly removed handguns from the NFA and explicitly added short barreled rifles to the final bill draft I bet SCOTUS upholds that |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:24:41 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wish they would challenge the '86 machine gun ban. Baby steps.... It's been 24 years, if they're still taking baby steps they're retarded. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:25:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike So much fail with this post...  Edit: You know, I thought I might be first but I underestimated ARFCOM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:27:29 AM EDT
[#38]
Our local news station has a poll going for this.
http://www.ktre.com/ BigDozer66 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:27:48 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good! Then if the 21 year old handgun law is struck down, maybe the 21 year old drinking age will be next. You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. No constitutional right to drink. Mike You have no constitutional rights to do anything, anything at all. The Constitution sets limits on what government can do, it does *not* enumerate all the rights we have. The sooner more people get this, the better. Find me where in the Constitution you are "granted" the right to travel, the right to watch television, the right to read, the right to get married, the right to raise your kids, the right to mow your lawn, etc., etc. Well put! As to the purchase age, if handgun purchase age gets reduced to 18, then that opens the door wide for striking down the SBR/SBS portion of the NFA, since there would no longer be any legitimate reason for them. The only thing the short barrel restrictions currently do is prevent 18 year olds from buying concealable weapons. If an 18yo can buy handguns, then the short barrel restrictions no longer serve a purpose. Not quite. Congress explicitly removed handguns from the NFA and explicitly added short barreled rifles to the final bill draft I bet SCOTUS upholds that But beyond concealability, what is the difference between a pistol caliber SBR (or rifle caliber pistol) that warrants the distinction? Folding stocks are legal on rifles. A 10" bbl SBR with a folding stock is no less easily concealed than a 10" bbl handgun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:28:28 AM EDT
[#40]
I'm all for raising the driving age to 18.
If you can vote and serve in the Military, you should be able to drink, why not a handgun as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:28:58 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
If you are old enough to fight and die for your Country then you should be old enough to buy a firearm and enjoy a beer if you want.! That argument worked when there was a draft. Without a draft not so much. If an 18 year old volunteers to serve then I agree they should be able to. But for those that don't serve then they can wait 3 years. I know this will never happen but that's my $.02. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:29:17 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY Morbo is displeased. Now I know pragmatism must always yield to liberty in GD, but I don't think we've got the momentum for this. I'm afraid some of these aggressive moves won't make sense to the nonshooting public and will end up putting the ball back in Brady's court. Guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:29:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Old enough to be convicted as an adult in court old enough to enjoy the rights of an adult. The 21 year old drinking age is justified by the fact that the human brain has not fully developed in some males until the age of 21 and the chances for alcohol dependence increases if it is consumed before the brain is fully developed. At least that's the theory/justification. There is no logical argument to deny an adult citizen the right to purchase a handgun at the age of 18. None. Zip. Zilch. It's something arbitrary they've done simply to curtail firearms ownership. If that is the case, then 18-20 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, purchase cigarettes, serve in the armed forces, face adult court, or consent to legal contracts or sexual relations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:31:03 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: If you are old enough to fight and die for your Country then you should be old enough to buy a firearm and enjoy a beer if you want.! This |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:32:12 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
I bet SCOTUS upholds that But beyond concealability, what is the difference between a pistol caliber SBR (or rifle caliber pistol) that warrants the distinction? Folding stocks are legal on rifles. A 10" bbl SBR with a folding stock is no less easily concealed than a 10" bbl handgun. Good question. Does the SA give Congress the right to regulate barrel length? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:32:39 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Old enough to be convicted as an adult in court old enough to enjoy the rights of an adult. The 21 year old drinking age isjustified by the fact that the human brain has not fully developed in some males until the age of 21 and the chances for alcohol dependence increases if it is consumed before the brain is fully developed. At least that's the theory/justification. There is no logical argument to deny an adult citizen the right to purchase a handgun at the age of 18. None. Zip. Zilch. It's something arbitrary they've done simply to curtail firearms ownership. If that is the case, then 18-20 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, purchase cigarettes, serve in the armed forces, face adult court, or consent to legal contracts or sexual relations. DERP! NO IT IS NOT! Not drinking alcohol is justified by the medical consequences. The LAW is NOT JUSTIFIED. Some people...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:33:31 AM EDT
[#47]
Now someone needs to send in a Form 1 to the ATF for a new machinegun. Hey NRA I'm willing to do it to be the test case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:34:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Isn't the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, which grants us certain rights? Not trying to stir shit, just curious how you can say that we aren't given any rights by the Constitution, but then the Bill of Rights which is attached to it, grants us rights such as the right to bear arms, free speech, etc. Or am I missing something? As for the 21 age limit for handgun purchases...I wouldn't care either way if they kept it or changed it to 18. I just wish the NRA would get off it's ass and start attacking some of the bullshit anti-gun lobbying that goes on in California on a daily basis. Good question, and you are––-the Bill of Rights, however, does not grant any rights––let's check 'em out one by one: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Clearly a limit on government––"Congress shall make no law..." rather than "granting" any right. Had it given rights, it would have said something like "The People have the right to peaceably assemble, etc." It doesn't, it merely states that Congress cannot infringe upon those rights, which already exist. Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Again, it doesn't say "The People have the right to keep and bear arms," but merely states that that right may not be infringed. Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. This also merely says something that government cannot do (this was violated during Katrina, I might add, though few noted it.) Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. As above, we do not see language stating something like "The People are hereby granted the right to be..." and we see only that the right to secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects may not be violated. Still just a restriction upon government. Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Again, just saying what government cannot force people to do. Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. This one could be argued to grant a set of rights, but I take it merely as another affirmation of pre-existing rights, rather than an act to grant any that were not innate. Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. This is also (at least the second part––the first part is essentially meaningless today, given the current value of $20) a limit placed upon the courts, not a right explicitly given. Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Again, merely says things that government can't do. Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. One of the most important, and totally overlooked amendments––it specifically says "enumeration," which indicates that the rights described are just that––described. It doesn't say "The granting in the Constitution, of certain rights..." it says "enumeration." Very important distinction. The second part, also pretty much totally overlooked today, specifies that there are other rights not listed. Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The other ignored amendment––-and note that it describes powers being delegated (in other words, things the government is allowed to do, nothing is listed about things the people are "allowed" to do,) and states that anything else is either the province of the states or the people. ETA: bold ETA 2: trying to fix quotes |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:45:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Oh hell no!!
Isn't the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, which grants us certain rights? Not trying to stir shit, just curious how you can say that we aren't given any rights by the Constitution, but then the Bill of Rights which is attached to it, grants us rights such as the right to bear arms, free speech, etc. Or am I missing something? As for the 21 age limit for handgun purchases...I wouldn't care either way if they kept it or changed it to 18. I just wish the NRA would get off it's ass and start attacking some of the bullshit anti-gun lobbying that goes on in California on a daily basis. The Constitution does not grant or bestow any rights. The Constitution defines and limits government - the Constitution has no limits (ZERO!) on personal freedom or liberty. While the Constitution does enumerate some specific rights, you'll notice that the NINTH AMENDMENT specifically states that listing any right in the Constitution does not mean it is a list of all rights retained by the people. "...retained by the people" implies that our rights, granted by our creator, existed before the Constitution or the formation of our government. ETA - The foundational concept of our Constitution is to protect our individual freedom, our individual rights, and our individual liberties. The concept of "collective" rights is required for a Communist or Socialist government to exist, and is used to suppress our individual rights. "Social" justice is used the same way. scotchymcdrinkerbean (above) is doing a pretty good job of answering (debunking) your original question in a detailed way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:59:15 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Isn't the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, which grants us certain rights? Not trying to stir shit, just curious how you can say that we aren't given any rights by the Constitution, but then the Bill of Rights which is attached to it, grants us rights such as the right to bear arms, free speech, etc. Or am I missing something? Because the men who wrote the Amendments believed that your rights were given to you by your creator and they were just securing them against a despotic government. This is elementary U.S. history. No rights can be given by man, and no man may give up his rights. They are ours from God. The Bill of Rights is nothing more than limits on the Federal Government, later expanded to the state governments. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
