emk
Regular Member
If "the right of the people" is meaningless in the second amendment, must we not make the argument that is it therefore invalid in the first amendment, and that someone who honestly believes that the second amendment does not apply to the people therefore has no Constitutional protection of free speech, religion, press, or assembly? I think this is a good new approach to the everyday encounter with those types that want to cause some kind of trouble on the subject. It's one of those things that will catch them off-guard and leave them stammering for at least a moment before the phrase, " . . . but, um, uh . . ." comes out. I think the right of the people must mean the militia, which is of course the National Guard, right? So only people in the National Guard have any Constitutional rights, right? It doesn't apply to anyone else, of course.
Can we not enforce a law restricting freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly, if we can enforce a law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms as well? I thought the 13th amendment argument was an interesting one during the McDonald v. Chicago case, when Daly was actually arguing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states per the 14th amendment, (which was the entire purpose of the 14th amendment). If Chicago can deny the right to keep and bear arms, can we not re-institute slavery? Can we not jail political dissidents? People fail to see the idiocy behind restricting one right. It's a slippery slope of the worst kind.
Can we not enforce a law restricting freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly, if we can enforce a law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms as well? I thought the 13th amendment argument was an interesting one during the McDonald v. Chicago case, when Daly was actually arguing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states per the 14th amendment, (which was the entire purpose of the 14th amendment). If Chicago can deny the right to keep and bear arms, can we not re-institute slavery? Can we not jail political dissidents? People fail to see the idiocy behind restricting one right. It's a slippery slope of the worst kind.