VikingsGuy
Well-known member
People also need to realize that there is not a single Constitutional right that is free of all regulation and oversight. So what we are talking about are what those should be (in light of the constitution).People also need to realize that there is no Constitutional provision protecting the ownership or use of opiates. The misplaced logic in defense of the attacks on gun ownership, cause much of the public to accept policies that are erroneously construed as necessary.
People also need to realize (or cite good SCOTUS precident to the contrary) that until Heller in 2008, the US constitution had never been found to provide for a private right of gun ownership. And even Heller itself - the most pro 2A SCOTUS ruling in history - specifically says, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Scalia also wrote, "nothing in our opinion (Heller) should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." He goes further and says, "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms . . . . the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” (citing support for Miller and the NFA) He then makes refernce to M14s as being such a regulatable weapon - but of course this reference is merely dicta.
Any position that gun ownership is untouchable and beyond any regulation is based upon zero understanding of the law or of history - and is instead advocating for a brand new view of gun ownership that has never had the power of law behind it - and as such should need to carry the burden of that position - as our Constitution simply does not support it.
Last edited: