that worked out well a few weeks ago.

He's still right. And if we relied on the Constitution to "give rights," abortion would be DOA anyway since it clearly doesn't do that. What it did until recently was restrict governments' ability to take away that right.

I recognize that blueviper is an idiot for saying "gives" instead of "protects," but still ...

He's not an idiot and I'm not attacking him. And I don't really care about this particular debate but him saying the "2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms" right is central to his statement of "it doesn't say which ones" which supports that "some types of guns" can therefore be "bann[ed]."

And I've managed to even bore myself with this post so my work here is done.

Are we sure 2A isn’t in reference to wearing short sleeves?

This board needs to be deleted. Pack it in

The function of his argument is the same. Even he said the right is "protected," his argument is that your right to any and all arms at all times is not protected.

I understand that. I'm not trying to do the gun debate. I really hate it as a topic. I commented for two reasons: 1) b_i somehow has to defend himself for every single thing he says even when he's clearly and obviously correct, like pointing out that the Constitution doesn't give people rights but rather restricts governments. 2) That particular misunderstanding (not even saying that viper has this misunderstanding--it's very easy to casually say it the other way) is one that I'm sensitive to because one of the foundations for most debates about government and politics in the U.S. is the principle that the Constitution established a limited government based on the consent of the governed and that to suppose that the government is in a position to give rights, and is therefore in a position to pick and choose which rights are given or taken away, turns the relationship between the government and the people on its head.

aren't there like 2 or 3 things the constitution actually gives you, besides a headache? the right to vote maybe, provided you meet the criteria? the right to import booze? i understand the argument about it not giving people rights, I'm not really disagreeing, but I remember reading about a couple of exceptions. not to be a complete nerd about this lol.

Voting, I guess that depends on how you frame it. It says that members of the House will be chosen by election but it leaves determining who can vote to the states. The voting rights amendments like 15 and 19 don't actually give black men (15) or women (19) the right to vote, it prevents states from barring people from voting based on race or sex.

article 1 section 2 is probably what i was thinking of as far as the argument that it does give certain rights to people.

of course it guarantees the gov't the right to tax people. no wonder this thing is falling apart.

It’s time for a new constitution anyway. Written by millennials. It’s time.

They could probably do better than the spoiled, racist, sexist men wrote the first one.

Um, well, that's a.....RUN KIDS! RUN!

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) caused a stir Wednesday on the House floor by saying, ‘I would do anything, anything to protect my 5 grandchildren, including … shooting them if I had to’

Can we take her guns specifically?

I already said it’s time. Please calm down.

Wasn’t it Jefferson who said it should be re-written every 20-30 years to reflect a changing society?

i think it was madison. whoever it was, i think the idea was to have a constitutional convention every x amount of years to see how the system is working and what needs to be updated. instead we are still interpreting text that was written in the 1700s and applying it to modern america.

there are no more militias. if terrorist groups call themselves militias thats fine, but we have to live in reality. the second amendment is only protecting people who invest in the production and sale of firearms. this whole "right to bear arms" argument is a pile of shit and everyone should see through it.

Yep, lets put him away for life too.