Gun Control vs. D.W.I.

Paul

I understand your point. However ther is still no other example of a currently constitutionally guaranteed right that imposes any sort of insuranse or tax on the people to be maintained. So why is the second amendment any different?

I’d like to know what ‘point’ you understood because your reply seems to indicate you didn’t even read my post.

The thing is that many of the rights don’t mention regulation or taxes but they require them.

Lets take the sixth for example

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

It doesn’t say anything about the regulations involved or the insurance or taxes needed, but for it to be maintained, the judiciary has to be properly regulated and taxes raised to finance it.

The second amendment actually mentions regulation –

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

**

The other things I’ve mentioned have been the relevance of the second, it doesn’t seem to have been very good at upholding the rights of others and instead has been used to threaten or actually suppress others rights.

Did you read - – ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

The other is the problem I see in pro-gunners emphasising the use of guns as a means of protecting against the symptoms of societal problems while seemingly ignoring or giving little thought to the causes of those problems. The thing is that the constant harking back to a 200 year old political compromise seems once again to be pro-gunners ignoring the present day problems of their society.

**

 

Gardener

Fourth amendment -

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

What is reasonable and what not, what is probable cause and what not and what is acceptable as an affirmation? And who decides?

*

Is suspected terrorism a reasonable reason?

Is the stockpiling of explosive or poisonous materials or the planning of an attack, probable cause?

Is the affirmation of a ‘respected’ professional citizen enough support?

So you can get peaceful environmentalists (of which many groups have been classified as ‘terrorist’) being raided on the say so of privately owned security operatives (hired by the corporate targets of the environmentalists), because they happen be organising a demonstration and have paint stripper or castor beans in their homes (many household products are explosive or poisonous).

All legal and all in line with the constitution.

I thing you should also read - ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

**