DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**HottBrorb** · 10-21-2005, 12:59 PM

But the most forceful argument for the right to bear arms is not within the second amendment at all. It is within the Constitution itself, since it enumerates what powers the People grant to the Government, not what Rights the People have. Therefore the People have all rights unless specifically constrained by the text of the Constitution, or in laws created within the framework.

Does the Constitution not specifically assert that all powers not explicitly given the Federal government reside with the States? How does that square with what you are asserting?

The Bill of Rights were passed merely to placate those who wanted more assurances. The Court has consistently held this view.

Given the long tradition of judicial activism, the fact that the Court has consistently held this view doesn't make it right. Politics rules, not the letter of the law.

The problem I have with this thread is that it tries to do too much. An adequate response to all the issues raised would take too long and expand into too many areas, and thus be too lengthy or untenable. I suggest that you take one issue and run with it, and save the rest for later.

I'm not particularly interested in any one specific policy area here. Start your own thread if you want to do that.

10-21-2005, 12:59 PM	#17
HottBrorb Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 408 Senior Member	But the most forceful argument for the right to bear arms is not within the second amendment at all. It is within the Constitution itself, since it enumerates what powers the People grant to the Government, not what Rights the People have. Therefore the People have all rights unless specifically constrained by the text of the Constitution, or in laws created within the framework. Does the Constitution not specifically assert that all powers not explicitly given the Federal government reside with the States? How does that square with what you are asserting? The Bill of Rights were passed merely to placate those who wanted more assurances. The Court has consistently held this view. Given the long tradition of judicial activism, the fact that the Court has consistently held this view doesn't make it right. Politics rules, not the letter of the law. The problem I have with this thread is that it tries to do too much. An adequate response to all the issues raised would take too long and expand into too many areas, and thus be too lengthy or untenable. I suggest that you take one issue and run with it, and save the rest for later. I'm not particularly interested in any one specific policy area here. Start your own thread if you want to do that.
	Quote