3 ms·

I am precisely saying that Congress should be allowed to pass any type of gun laws. Right now, Congress cannot infringe on people's rights to bear arms due to 2

by rvo 9y ago

I am precisely saying that Congress should be allowed to pass any type of gun laws. Right now, Congress cannot infringe on people's rights to bear arms due to 2A. I am saying Congress should be able to do that. They should be able to ban anything they want by passing laws. And if the people that they are representing want gun confiscations, Congress should pass laws for that too... Right now they cannot because the constitution doesn't allow it. If you repeal 2A, then they (Congress) will be able to do much more about guns.

Consultant32452 9y ago
All I'm trying to point out is that your philosophy of law is the exact opposite of the philosophy of the Constitution. You seem to be working from a position where you believe all power lies in the state except where the state has so graciously limited itself by kindly granting us rights to things like free speech, religion, or armed defense. The Constitution is written from the opposite direction, that all power lies in the people and the Constitution is the mechanism by which we grant limited authority to the government. In fact, this was a big part of the debate around passing the Bill of Rights in the first place, that it would confuse this issue. Repealing the 1st Amendment would not remove our right to free speech. It would simply remove the codification of that right and we would revert to natural law which still would include free speech. In order for the government to infringe on our natural right to free speech we the people would have to pass an amendment explicitly granting the government the authority to do so. The same of course applies to the 2A. This is essentially the philosophy of the founders and the limited government crowd you're going to be arguing against if you want to regulate guns. I'm hoping that you'll see that this isn't just a semantic difference in the mechanism by which you might accomplish gun restrictions, but a deeper difference in the belief system around the philosophy of law. I'm not trying to change your mind about the 2A here, but to help you relate to the small government crowd with the way you talk about the law. You're not trying to revert a power granted to us by the government, you're trying to subvert natural law.
- rvo 9y ago
  I am very well aware of the natural rights theory developed during the age of enlightenment. We have given up our natural right to kill another person. I am suggesting we should give up our natrual right to bear arms. The idea with natural rights has always been that we have unlimited rights (and actually enumerating them can be problematic) but we give some up to live in a society where we can pursue life liberty and happiness. I am saying Americans via their representatives should give up their right to bear arms, remove it from being enumerated, and then allow strong legislation that outlaws weapons just like we have done with murder. If an amendment is needed then so be it "Congress HAS the right to strictly control guns in order to protect life". Does that make sense?
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I think we're talking past each other. I understand your position, I was just trying to help you communicate in the language of your target audience.

by rvo 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

All I'm trying to point out is that your philosophy of law is the exact opposite of the philosophy of the Constitution. You seem to be working from a position where you believe all power lies in the state except where the state has so graciously limited itself by kindly granting us rights to things like free speech, religion, or armed defense. The Constitution is written from the opposite direction, that all power lies in the people and the Constitution is the mechanism by which we grant limited authority to the government. In fact, this was a big part of the debate around passing the Bill of Rights in the first place, that it would confuse this issue. Repealing the 1st Amendment would not remove our right to free speech. It would simply remove the codification of that right and we would revert to natural law which still would include free speech. In order for the government to infringe on our natural right to free speech we the people would have to pass an amendment explicitly granting the government the authority to do so. The same of course applies to the 2A. This is essentially the philosophy of the founders and the limited government crowd you're going to be arguing against if you want to regulate guns. I'm hoping that you'll see that this isn't just a semantic difference in the mechanism by which you might accomplish gun restrictions, but a deeper difference in the belief system around the philosophy of law. I'm not trying to change your mind about the 2A here, but to help you relate to the small government crowd with the way you talk about the law. You're not trying to revert a power granted to us by the government, you're trying to subvert natural law.

rvo 9y ago
I am very well aware of the natural rights theory developed during the age of enlightenment. We have given up our natural right to kill another person. I am suggesting we should give up our natrual right to bear arms. The idea with natural rights has always been that we have unlimited rights (and actually enumerating them can be problematic) but we give some up to live in a society where we can pursue life liberty and happiness. I am saying Americans via their representatives should give up their right to bear arms, remove it from being enumerated, and then allow strong legislation that outlaws weapons just like we have done with murder. If an amendment is needed then so be it "Congress HAS the right to strictly control guns in order to protect life". Does that make sense?
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I think we're talking past each other. I understand your position, I was just trying to help you communicate in the language of your target audience.