jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
I will admit that we, as a civil society, must allow some rights to be limited. My right to fire a gun willy-nilly at my neighbors' houses must in fact be limited because by doing so I impede on their rights.
However, the right to keep and bear arms does not in and of itself impede on anyone's rights. So why should I allow the government to limit the right?
How does my "keeping and bearing" RPG's, tanks, fighter bombers impede on anyone's rights? Likewise for 30rd magazines, AR-15 government barrel profiles, and full automatic machine guns.
It's in the government's interest to limit what I keep and bear. I never understood how we can entrust the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government to that very same government.
And I believe SCOTUS is in error in determining the 2A is not an absolute right. It is in their interest to rule against it.
What is the basis for SCOTUS to determine that it's not an absolute right? They are WRONG on this (and many other things)
The SCOTUS has been eroding our rights and making up new ones for decades.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have not answered my question about the basis for why the right is an absolute or near absolute one. Since it is a pre-existing right shouldn't you be able to point to some source that has the answer?
SCOTUS looked at many sources to determine their answer and documented their sources in Heller. If you think they are wrong, file a lawsuit and present your sources to them.