AR 15 Reclassification

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

I may be mistaken, but before it was changed , was it not a 'right' to own another human being? And even if I am wrong about the first statement, why for the good of all, cannot 'rights' change over time?

---

They can - it is just much more significant to change the rights of the individual than it is to revise laws. This is particularly true when one is reducing rights as opposed to increasing them.

As far as owning people goes the right was to own property and it just so happens certain people were considered property. The right still exists to own property but people are no longer considered property (at least in the developed world).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Pretty good comparison Rugger. However our rights to guns are a little different.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and those inalienable rights were codified in the 10 amendments to the US Constitution, the US was wedded into the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from a God given humanity. This was recognized by the SCOTUS as a FUNDAMENTAL personal right, not a gift of our government in DC v Heller. It held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right and NOT a gift from government.
A Fundamental personal right is the self evident natural ability of individuals to make choices WITHOUT government PERMISSION.

The only way government can interfere with that is if it can demonstrate a COMPELLING governmental interest that is also the LEAST restrictive means AND ONLY WITH DUE PROCESS.

As Americans, we dont NEED to defend the law nor show a compelling need to bear arms; the government must show a compelling need to prevent us from doing so. It's called BLACK LETTER LAW, meaning it's VERY WELL accepted and established throughout the land.

Funny, this past week the liberal, socialist and communist liberal democrats sought to tie the 2nd amendment right to arms to a No Fly list/Watch list, preventing any on that list from buying a gun. YET NOT A SINGLE SENATOR COULD STATE THE CRITERIA FOR PUTTING A NAME ON THAT LIST AND NONE COULD IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE OR PEOPLES WHO PREPARE THAT LIST.

That's because these are well guarded secret lists. If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret, well guarded list on the bureaucrat's own whim, YOU have lost a FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY and RIGHT and now the government has turned a fundamental right/liberty into a government GIFT.

One idiot of a Senator even stated "due process" is killing us. Due process is spelled out in the Constitution. Due process is the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to FORCE any and all violations to be PROVED by the government to a jury of our peers before the government can take LIFE, LIBERTY or PROPERTY.

It is the essence of the RIGHTS of FREE people.

Gun control, as one can see, is ONLY about Control of a FREE People. Their real agenda of CONTROL and Government dependence is becoming more and more obvious as their demands become less and less about substance.

---

The laws of natural selection will prevail in the USA,the nuts will either kill off the citizens or vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I'm not clear on how absolutist arguments concerning the US constitution apply to the reclassification of the AR-15 in Canada.

---

My post was mainly for consumption in response to this thread's previos posts on US/politics/no fly list/terrorist watch/oh the horror/Pulse shooting/gun rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

The laws of natural selection will prevail in the USA,the nuts will either kill off the citizens or vice versa.

---

I'm betting on the citizens.
The Democrats are just upset because the Pulse shooter was one of their card carrying hillary supporters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

While this mostly makes sense, those men 300 years ago enshrined the "right" to bear arms. A right is different from a law. Laws are often written to protect rights but don't confuse the two. Much more significant to revise the rights of your citizens than change laws.

---

The constitution is a law made by men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The constitution is a law made by men.

---

I never said otherwise. What I said was is that a right is not the same as a law. Laws (like the constitution) are enacted to protect rights. The right to vote, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc.. These are rights not laws. Similar (and also determined by men) but not the same.

Enacting a law that infringes on any fundamental right would have to stand up to a constitutional challenge. Not like passing a no texting while you drive law or no backyard campfires in town law.

Enacting a law that infringes a right only has to withstand a constitutional challenge to the extent that the right is protected by the constitution, a law.

I understand your point, but it remains a fact that in a legal sense rights exist only in law. No court can throw out a law on the basis that it violates a philisophical idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I understand your point, but it remains a fact that in a legal sense rights exist only in law. No court can throw out a law on the basis that it violates a philisophical idea.

---

They are defined in law but are different than the law itself. My point to FM was essentially once a right is defined (I called it enshrined) in a law like the constitution it becomes very difficult to meddle with down the road. As I said in the previous post it's not like passing a no-texting while driving law that does not infringe on any constitutional rights. Guaranteed any law passed regarding firearms control will have to withstand the "right to bear arms" constitutional challenge that will inevitably follow - nothing philosophical about it.

What the states needs is a clear definition of what constitutes "arms," or they need to amend the constitution. Neither of these things will come easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

They are defined in law but are different than the law itself. My point to FM was essentially once a right is defined (I called it enshrined) in a law like the constitution it becomes very difficult to meddle with down the road. As I said in the previous post it's not like passing a no-texting while driving law that does not infringe on any constitutional rights. Guaranteed any law passed regarding firearms control will have to withstand the "right to bear arms" constitutional challenge that will inevitably follow - nothing philosophical about it.

What the states needs is a clear definition of what constitutes "arms," or they need to amend the constitution. Neither of these things will come easily.

---

Judge Antonin Scalia did. Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried..
He will me sorely missed.

The argument of the forefathers didn't know there would be high capacity assault weapons so the amendment needs to be changed always irks me, especially when you read the amendment in its entirety. The Americans had just completed a very bloody war for their independence, a war they won against a tyrannical government because they had the means to fight them. They did not consider advancements in firearm technology and if they did it would not have restricted what firearms they could have in the event they found themselves having to fight another war for freedom and independence. So changing that part of the constitution just because it doesn't suit a certain sects agenda is foolish at best.
Did the American founding fathers know there was going to be Internet, Facebook, cellphones,Skype etc when they wrote the amendment for free speech, the same formats that allow vermin like ISIS to recruit the weak minded and spew their rhetoric?maybe the Americans should repeal that part of the constitution as well? Maybe they didn't intend for speech to be just that free?
What level of freedom and civil liberties do you feel comfortable sacrificing hmmm? Whatever that amount is, it will never be enough for others who feel they know what's in our best interests, all done under the favorite guise of public safety.