The Second Amendment

[Kathianne]

I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.

So you believe that the SCOTUS will rule for Obama health reform, forcing purchase?

[Little-Acorn]

Nobody seems to refute this being an enumerated power.

See my comments on how the 2nd modifies the Commerce Clause, in Post #50. The same reasoning applies to the Militia language you cited.

[ConHog]

So you believe that the SCOTUS will rule for Obama health reform, forcing purchase?

I don't see how the two are comparable. One is saying you can't own X , the other is saying you MUST own Y.

[logroller]

See my comments on how the 2nd modifies the Commerce Clause, in Post #50. The same reasoning applies to the Militia language you cited.

The 2nd amendment specifies 'a well regulated militia', whereas the enumerated power doesn't. This is because the enumerated power pertains to said regulation. The second amendment doesn't overwrite the enumerated power, it subscribes to it.

I'd like to examine this idea though, as the concept of an amendment certainly does modify the original text. Let's take the enumerated power to protect writings and discoveries. Say there's a patent on some new receiver for a handgun. Now I can copy that design, keep and bear that handgun. However, I try and sell that gun, I have broken the law because Congress has the authority to restrict commerce, irrespective of what one may loosely construe as a 2nd Amendment violation. Yes I have a right to bear arms; but my right cannot violate another's right; rights are coexistant. Laws which are in place to protect those rights must survive strict scrutiny; but they aren't automatically nullified by an amendment. As CH said, rights aren't absolute-- laws still apply.

[Kathianne]

I would tend to agree with you. My only argument is that the government CAN limit where and what you may own. I do NOT argue that they SHOULD do so.

I don't see how the two are comparable. One is saying you can't own X , the other is saying you MUST own Y.

First quote. No qualifiers there.

[ConHog]

First quote. No qualifiers there.

Okay I see what you're saying. No that is not what I mean, I was speaking ONLY in reference to firearms RE: 2nd amendment. I don't think that saying the 2nd doesn't prevent the government from saying "you can't own a minigun" translates into the government can say "you must own health insurance."

Hope that clears up my opinion.

[Kathianne]

Okay I see what you're saying. No that is not what I mean, I was speaking ONLY in reference to firearms RE: 2nd amendment. I don't think that saying the 2nd doesn't prevent the government from saying "you can't own a minigun" translates into the government can say "you must own health insurance."

Hope that clears up my opinion.

Not really, but logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

[logroller]

Hey ch, what about the draft; which can require someone to take up arms?

[ConHog]

Hey ch, what about the draft; which can require someone to take up arms?

would make an interesting thread in and of itself, but in short I believe it's unconstitutional.

[ConHog]

Not really, but logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Hey Kath I got an idea. Why don't you stop engaging in the very behavior which you used to thread ban people for.

[Kathianne]

Hey Kath I got an idea. Why don't you stop engaging in the very behavior which you used to thread ban people for.

Now you are going delusional. Indeed, my guess is Jim would say you still shouldn't be questioning moderation.

[ConHog]

Now you are going delusional. Indeed, my guess is Jim would say you still shouldn't be questioning moderation.

I didn't question moderation, I questioned YOUR behavior.

[Kathianne]

I didn't question moderation, I questioned YOUR behavior.

Yeah, you did. In any case, I'm posting as regular member and have the ability to make observations.

[ConHog]

Yeah, you did. In any case, I'm posting as regular member and have the ability to make observations.

No, you are derailing and flaming.

[Little-Acorn]

I'd like to examine this idea though, as the concept of an amendment certainly does modify the original text. Let's take the enumerated power to protect writings and discoveries. Say there's a patent on some new receiver for a handgun. Now I can copy that design,

You can? I thought patent law forbade that, without the original inventor's permission of course. But I may be wrong, I don't know much about patent law.

Say sombody invented a new tractor engine, that let him run his tractor using 1/3 the fuel of other tractors for the same performance. Can I copy that engine, put the copy in my tractor, and start selling my grain for a lot less because I used less fuel to till and harvest it? And the inventor of the engine can't do a thing to stop me, even though he has a U.S. patent on the engine and its new concepts?

But, suppose that's true. Then you have asked an interesting question, about selling the gun you copied. The Constitution protects the original inventor's ideas for manufacturing the gun (via patents), but it also protects my potential buyer's right to keep and bear arms. Who wins? Might depend on the definition of "property". Do you own the copy of the gun? If you do, then why can't you sell it? Either you own it or you don't. This is why I am surprised at your comment that you can copy the inventor's gun despite his patent.

If you can legally copy it, then we have a contradiction. But you can always create a contradiction if you take a falsehood and pretend it's true. Is that what's happening in this case?