oldsoul
Gold Member
Ok, I'll give you that, but consider this:I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves.
Why are they unreasonable?
You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself? Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
2nd Amendment
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 SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.
- Shall not be infringed.
- shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
- shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
- Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
- shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.
All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID
For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.
The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
It has that one qualifying phrase.
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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 reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous."
The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
Meaning of the phrase
So, a "well regulated Militia..." at the time of the 2nd adoption would NOT include the Government.
So, to reword it, A [properly functioning] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
See how that differs from: A [government run] militia...