« Are more gun law associated with a lower homicide rate? | Main | NYC using vehicle-mounted backscatter search »
Hillary compares dealing with NRA to negotiating with Iran
Right here.
It's just a ploy to pick up the pro-gun vote, with a promise that she'd support repeal of GCA 68 and enactment of 50-State constitutional carry, plus a $10,000 gift to each gun owner, so long as we self-verify that we have no plans to commit a crime.
UPDATE: the debate between natural rights and legal positivism can never be settled!
Natural rights: rights are natural, established by God or nature. [The "nature" part involves reasoning along the lines of: "man has a strong will to keep on living, and a need to converse with other men. Ergo, his nature is proof that he has a right to self-defense and to freedom of expression."] The Framers were of this school -- why else the Ninth Amendment, recognizing that there are rights not set out in the Bill of Rights? Under this approach, a bill of rights "guarantees" a right, but does not "create" it.
Legal positivism: rights are human constructs, created by human agreements. The right to free expression exists because the First Congress proposed it, and 3/4 of the States ratified it, and we are bound by their decision. This approach really originates in the early 20th century, and is now so near-universal that most attorneys and judges don't even think of the alternative.
Of course, both sides do fudge things a little when they have to. Positivists see no problem espousing Roe v. Wade and other non-enumerated rights, on which the one certainty is that 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States never agreed to matters. And those who take the natural rights approach can cite legislative history, which is of limited relevance. (I say limited because I can see an argument that "the right exists independent of the guarantee, but the guarantee establishes an indisputable minimum definition of a right.")
11 Comments | Leave a comment
First time to site. I would like to share my 'pet peeve' regarding the NRA and other such groups. I don't stay current, so perhaps somewhere, someone has figured this out and is doing something about it that I'm not aware of; Question: Can one be REQUIRED to forfeit a right in order to exercise another? Why the NRA with their fleet of 'attorneys' and so on have apparently never addressed this is beyond comprehension to me, and should in fact very much be a 'front burner' priority. Why, you ask? Because, all agree the 2nd Am. is a RIGHT and irrevocable, HOWEVER, we are required in MOST states to take out the PRIVILEGE of a 'concealed permit'. Firstly, you cannot simultaneously hold a Right and a Privilege. Choose; one or the other. So, not only are you 'required' to SURRENDER you Right to carry under concealed carry 'laws', to take out the PRIVILEGE(revocable as opposed to inalienable, subject to FUTURE laws, requires begging on your part - read - offer $ for the privilege), etc. but can anyone answer me this: How can I exercise my right to self defense via carrying a concealed weapon without having to VOLUNTARILY waive a right I would like very much to retain, as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment; that is, the right to privacy?? Is it anyone else's business if you are carrying? If not, then why do the cops and so on have a 'right' to know? Were they forced to take a job that violates other's rights? In support of this view, have not 3 states already done away with 'concealed permit' because they recognize, rightly so, that such requirement obviously violates the 2nd Am.? This sham of a scam of denying people their God given Right, and offering a servants-issued 'permit' as a weak and fickle substitute is beyond ridiculous. I would hope someone somewhere with a mouthpiece would run with this truth of abuse and help throttle back one more government runaway abuse and stealing of the citizen's rights.
Does that mean she is going to give up and repeal all the laws?
God-given right to bear arms? That's laughable. You realize the bill of rights was written by people right? Not God.
How can a permit be required for something that's a right? Because those rights are not unlimited, as has been determined through the Supreme Court many times. It's the reason you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, and the reason I can't own a rocket laucher.
Well HP, you can move to AZ, AK, VT or WY and carry as you wish.
And yes, those rights ARE God given.
The paper written to spell them out grants nothing. It doesn't have to, they are ours to begin with. What it does spell out are restrictions on Federal power.
Even if the .gov does an unconstitutional end run (again) and bans, restricts or tries to nullify XYZ doesn't mean we don't have the right. It just means that the .gov is showing it's true colors.
KM, I'm sure your comment was intended to be directed at "Matthew Lloyd", who obviously dismisses the founders' sentiments in the Declaration stating "we hold these truths to be self evident" and "endowed by their creator" as nonsense.
These Libtards always view things through the wrong end of the long glass.
You must've taken classes at the Donald Trump school of debate: when presented with facts, just insult your opponent. How godly of you.
Facts?? You present facts?
You imply that rights are only given by man, and since the right addressed in the 2A was written by men, it does not otherwise exist.
Fact: in 1876 the Supreme Court observed that the right to keep and bear arms "...is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." (US v Cruickshank)
Oh, and I do believe shouting "fire" in any venue is okay provided there is a fire.
Correct, Holmes wrote: "....falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater."
As usual, the libtards warp truth to fit their agenda.
The CORRECT quote is that you cannot "FALSELY" yell fire in a crowded theater. Ignorant folks screw the quote up all the time. AND free speech is NOT listed as a Right in the Constitution; freedom of speech is a social construct among the members of society.
The Right to protect, nay, the duty to God, to protect one's life is the central concept of the 2nd which is a Right. That Right preexists the Constitution and is not granted, merely recognized by the document. See US v Cruikshank, 1876.
People should also read the 84th Federalist, which was used to sell ratification of the Constitution. In that document, Hamilton points out the federal government has no legitimate power to legislate in any of the areas that were to be included in a Bill of Rights. Hamilton's statement was that no Bill of Rights was necessary; that adding the Bill of Rights would cause people to think the Bill of Rights was restricting the delegated powers instead of understanding that the BoR was merely stating preexisting Rights that should be recognized by every government.
But then the Supreme Court erroneously found in Barron v Baltimore (1833) that the BoR did not bind the states. That decision gave us the 20,000+ invalid state firearms laws. It was incorrect by way of 1) the language of the 2nd and 2) by way of the supremacy clause.
Practically, such discussions are of the same nature as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Well, she also compared it to negotiating with the communists, and we all know how much she hates communists.