Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
So weird, and sadly on HURL.

First, Babylon Bee (remember that original post) is a comedy news site. They put the gun - car analogy article together, ….. because it is ridiculous. And I had thought (maybe) that was why it was posted to HURL, that is until telegraph started defending it. So .. accepting that the analogy is ridiculous (thank you telegraph for helping make that point), we now are in the realm of arguing over constitutional rights.

That should not be here, …… but since it is …..advocates of the 'not infringed' position would be better informed to read the 'argument' of conservative Scalia in the 2008 Heller case. I've linked it for you.

Snipets

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. ….. Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. ….Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. [You know, that 'well regulated militia' part they like to ignore.]

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” …. The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. …. nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings …… We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Personally, I would like to see the BATF require that weapons makers get a 'classification' on each new model and design (guns and accessories) prior to marketing i.e. 'arms', 'militia use', 'military' etc., much like an FDA approval process. This would limit ownership per category - and yes, bring back registered militias and membership in them. I'm OK with widespread ownership of weapons of personal protection and simple hunting. But you owning some weapons beyond those e.g. high capacity clip accepting guns, would require a 'militia' group (25 to 200 in size) willing to vouch for your responsible use of them, and potentially put their own rights of ownership on the line for you.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Print the post  

Announcements

HURL Rules
Relax, laugh and Enjoy Foolishly
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.