3 ms·
But in that story it's the decision to use the database to carry out confiscation which is unconstitutional, not the existence of the database in the first plac
by jameshart 10y ago
But in that story it's the decision to use the database to carry out confiscation which is unconstitutional, not the existence of the database in the first place. If a government decided to confiscate all the cars from Hispanic people by using their vehicle registration database, that would be unconstitutional too - but that doesn't mean having a vehicle registry is invalid.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoPractically everyone owns a car. There'd be some pretty obvious writing on the wall if a small vocal minority demonized cars and convinced the gov't to confiscate them from one minority (racial or otherwise) everyone else would catch on quick. Not as many people have skin in the game in terms of gun ownership. Why don't you trust the populace with their guns rather than ask the populace to trust the gov't with a registry? For X amount of bad things to happen (where X is a large number) you need a lot more coordinated or systemically encouraged action in the first situation whereas in the latter a few insulated members of the elite and a loud lobby by a few interest groups would suffice.
- chris_va 10y agoSure, but the premise here is that the population no longer trusts the government to serve their best interests, nor perhaps abide by the constitution. It's all about checks and balances. The second amendment gives some power to the people to revolt (in theory), as a check against government power. If the people need to trust the government not to do something unconstitutional (i.e. not confiscate weapons) for that to be effective, then the check is no longer useful and it defeats the purpose of the second amendment.