Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

yellowcanine

(36,719 posts)

4. Because there were no motor vehicles in 1789?

Reply to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:20 PM

Dec 2012

Seriously, the short answer to your question is that modes of conveyance are not mentioned in the Constitution, guns are. But I do not believe the framers of the Constitution ever intended to ban the right of Congress to regulate guns. They just meant to guarantee the right of gun ownership. It is not the same thing, even though the NRA would like us to think that it is. I think Madison and Jefferson would be appalled at how the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

another legal question. Why is operating a motor vehicle a privilege and operating a gun a right? [View all] srican69 Dec 2012 OP

Because of the stupid fucking 2nd amendment LibAsHell Dec 2012 #1

I always have had the faith that law, in the long run, is fair and impartial ... srican69 Dec 2012 #5

The Constitution? n/t jmg257 Dec 2012 #2

Cars are not in the Bill of Rights. Guns are. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #3

Because there were no motor vehicles in 1789? yellowcanine Dec 2012 #4

+1 joeybee12 Dec 2012 #6

+1 SugarShack Dec 2012 #13

The basis for the "right" is the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #7

It has only been interpreted that way for 4 years. If you throw you lot with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, byeya Dec 2012 #14

Even if one concedes that it is an individual right though it does not mean no regulation. yellowcanine Dec 2012 #19

Absolutely DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #31

The right to self-defense ranks at or near the top of natural rights. Arms are effective tools for jody Dec 2012 #8

I'd be fine... LP2K12 Dec 2012 #9

We have the "right to travel" (an unenumerated right protected by the ninth) X_Digger Dec 2012 #10

The Constitution. Also, public roads Recursion Dec 2012 #11

Prior to 2008 it was perfectly legit for a jurisdiction to ban handguns. In 2008, the Filthy Five of byeya Dec 2012 #12

The 4 minority justices recognized the right, citing PA & VT constitutions but held the 2nd was not jody Dec 2012 #15

translation please ... I have a PhD in systems engineering but somehow its not helping srican69 Dec 2012 #16

Perhaps you need to read the Heller decision. I'm not impressed by your PhD. jody Dec 2012 #18

what !! really srican69 Dec 2012 #21

Big deal what if I claimed to have two? Would that impress you? nt jody Dec 2012 #23

Honestly - it would. srican69 Dec 2012 #29

It most certainly does not. You are wrong. You are spreading NRA lies. byeya Dec 2012 #17

Read the Heller decision and cite passages to rebut my assertion. jody Dec 2012 #20

Delicate Flowers always get the 2nd Amendment wrong bongbong Dec 2012 #25

Your posts suggest you have not read the Heller opinion and dissent. I would give you a link but in jody Dec 2012 #28

LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #30

Yes, there are a number of parrots spreading NRA lies on DU bongbong Dec 2012 #26

In 1981 Morton Grove. IL. banned the ownership of handguns and on appeal the appeals byeya Dec 2012 #22

It would be a right were we writing the Constitution today in the spirt of those writing it then. ieoeja Dec 2012 #24

Serious answer, in my mind a flawed interpretation nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #27