Skip to main content

View Diary: To those who want an armed society. (277 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well I, the US constitution, the SCOTUS (5+ / 0-)

    240 years of US history, and 100 million plus people disagree with you.

    •  Well, no. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Glen The Plumber

      The "right to keep and bear arms" was not adjudicated to be an individual "right" until 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). So take that "240 years of U.S. History" down to "5½ years of U.S. history," and you might have a point.

      The U.S. Constitution, as I've pointed out separately, does not state or indicate that the "right to keep and bear arms" is a liberty interest rather than a property interest, and "liberty" and "property" are listed separately in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Definitionally, "keep and bear" indicates ownership and/or lawful possession, which are property rights.

      I don't care how many people "disagree." Considering that "100 million plus people" think that pollution can't possibly affect the global climate, and that the Earth was created in 6 days by an invisible sky man 5,000 years ago, that's hardly proof that I'm wrong.

      •  As has been pointed out many times in threads (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, theatre goon, gerrilea, DavidMS

        You are incorrect on the history pre-Heller. The idea that it might not be an individual right is the very modern concept with only a brief history.

        It's a "right"... given to the "people"... to perform an action ("bear")... that cannot be infringed. Sure sounds like a liberty to me.

        •  "Bear" is not an "action" that a person (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          can "perform," per se. "Bear" means to carry, hold or possess. "Keep" means to own, hold or possess permanently (or quasi-permanently). These are both property interests, by the very nature of what "property" is.

          Again, and I hate to keep repeating this, but you pay for property; you don't pay for liberty. You can't have a "right" to own or possess something if you have to pay for it (i.e., give up property you already own) first; you can't have a "right" to own or possess something that someone else owns until you pay for the right to own or possess it. There is no other way to reconcile the fact that your "right to keep and bear Arms" is limited by your capacity to pay for them and the owners'/sellers' willingness to let you have the one(s) you want at a price you can afford. It can't be a liberty interest if it is limited that way; it can't be a liberty interest if you have to give something up before you can exercise it.

          •  And again... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, gerrilea

            So the right to be secure in my home is not a liberty because it requires I buy/rent a home... The right to a free press is not a liberty because it requires buying means to disseminate what you have written or said... The right to an abortion requires you perform it yourself with a stick or it's not a "liberty" because otherwise it involves a commercial transaction (whether paid for by you, an insurance company, or the government).

            •  No, your right to be secure in your (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              "home" (which, again, is a word not included in the text of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be secure in one's "persons, houses, papers and effects") is in no way dependent upon your ownership or possession of a "home" and in no way requires you to buy anything.

              The right to a free press, to the extent that could be an individual right rather than a collective right, in no way requires you to buy anything. Whatever you choose to buy or feel the need to buy to exercise that right, is your business; the right itself has nothing to do with buying things.

              The "right to abortion" (if you can call it that; I prefer the "right to choose," but OK) in no way requires anyone to buy anything. The purchase of medical services is incidental to the right; the right is the freedom to make the choice, not to purchase the service.

              None of these rights includes a "right" to "keep and bear" any particular consumer product. The need or desire for goods and services is incidental. The "right to keep and bear arms" is the precise opposite; it does specify a product, and ownership/possession of that product is the explicitly enumerated right.

              •  The desire for goods or services (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, FrankRose

                is also incidental in the same way to my right to be armed. It may or may not involve some commercial transaction as a possible prerequisite (though not necessarily). The right is to be armed, not to have any particular arm. The right fundamentally involves a state of being, not an object.

                •  You can't "be armed" without arms. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  "Keep and bear" has nothing to do with commercial transactions; as I said earlier, "keep and bear" does not mean "buy and sell," so this reference to commercial transactions is a non-sequitur. Moreover, commercial transactions are in the realm of contracts, not property.

                  "To be armed" is a state of being, yes. So is "to keep and bear arms." Thank you for acknowledging that your previous statement, that "to keep and bear arms" is an "action," was wrong, and also for acknowledging that your previous statement that "the right to keep and bear arms" "fundamentally involve[d]" an "action" was also wrong.

                  But "to keep and bear arms" does not mean "to be armed." Those are two different things. The Second Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to be armed". It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You're either saying that (1) the former and the latter mean the same thing, or (2) they do not mean the same thing, and the Second Amendment means the former even though it says the latter. Either way, you're wrong.

                  The right is to be armed, not to have any particular arm.
                  I see. So you would agree, then, that outlawing the manufacture or sale of a particular model or category of firearm would not infringe upon the "right to keep and bear arms," so long as there are some firearms available with which a person could "be armed," even if it's not the "particular arm" he wants?
              •  I understand your desire (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, FrankRose, Neo Control

                to justify your authoritarianism with a ludicrous parsing of the text. However, it isn't persuasive in the least.

                •  And, ladies and gentlemen, we have our (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero, Glen The Plumber

                  first ad hominem attack. Thank you for playing; you've been a wonderful contestant. Bye, now!

                  •  That word... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon

                    I do not think it means what I think you think it means...

                    Argmentum Ad Hominem is committed when someone rejects an argument based upon the identity of the arguer, failing to address the argument made.

                    This did not just occur. Your argument was clearly rejected on it's own (lack of) merit.

                    •  It absolutely did occur. (0+ / 0-)

                      farmernate "reject[ed my] argument" based on "[my] authoritarianism" and "[my] desire to justify" same, not on any "lack of merit" which he utterly failed to demonstrate. He failed to refute the argument on its merits because he failed to understand its merits in the first instance, and thus deflected those failures onto me by accusing me of having and desiring to "justify" a specific character flaw.

                      That is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. Your failure to recognize it is of no concern to me.

          •  Incorrect, "to bear" meant to "wage war". (0+ / 0-)


            What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:49:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I generally give conservative think tanks like (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The Constitution Society (, and the writings that appear thereon and are disseminated thereby, the consideration and deference they deserve. Make of that what you will.

              •  Ha! So, when presented with evidence (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                your definition of "bear" is both legally and historically wrong, you dismiss it as "conservative"?

                What dishonest tripe!

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:16:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I said I gave your source its due consideration. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  Everything else, you made up.

                •  Start here. (0+ / 0-)

                  A Dictionary of the English Language, 1792 edition

                  To BEAR. v. a.pret. I bore, or bared

                  1. To carry as a burden.
                  2. To convey or carry.
                  3. To carry as a mark of authority.
                  4. To carry as a mark of distinction.
                  5. To carry as in show.
                  6. To carry as in trust.
                  7. To support ; to keep from falling.
                  8. To keep afloat.
                  9. To support with proportionate strength.
                  10. To carry in the mind as love, hate.
                  11. To endure, as pain, without sinking.
                  12. To suffer to undergo.
                  13. To permit.
                  14. To be capable of ; to admit.
                  15. To produce, as fruit.
                  16. To bring forth, as a child.
                  17. To possess, as power or honour.
                  18. To gain ; to win.
                  19. To maintain ; to keep up.
                  20. To support any thing good or bad.
                  21. To exhibit.
                  22. To be answerable for.
                  23. To supply.
                  24. To be the object of.
                  25. To behave.
                  26. To impel ; to urge ; to push.
                  27. To press.
                  28. To incite ; to animate.
                  29. To bear in hand. To amuse with false pretences; to deceive.
                  30. To bear off. To carry away by force.
                  31. To bear out To support; to maintain.

                  To BEAR. v. n.

                  1. To suffer pain.
                  2. To be patient.
                  3. To be fruitful or prolifick.
                  4. To take effect ; to succeed.
                  5. To tend ; to be directed to any point.
                  6. To act as an impellent.
                  7. To act upon.
                  8. To be situated with respect to other places.
                  9. To bear up. To stand firm without falling.
                  10. To bear with To endure an unpleasing thing.

                  I don't see "to wage war" or anything resembling same anywhere in there.

                  Find me an 18th-century English dictionary or other contemporaneous primary source that includes "to wage war" in the definition of the verb "to bear", and I'll gladly concede your point.

                  Thank you and have a nice evening.

                  •  Here: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon

                    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

                    Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

                    The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.”

                    We have a difference of opinion here, "to bear" meaning: to carry and "to bear" meaning: to use.

                    I will concede that it may be just "to own and carry"....but I find that a bit awkward given the actual history of this nation.

                    It's like saying: "You can have a free press but you can't actually print anything."


                    "You can own and carry arms but you can't use them."

                    It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:35:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  An 18th century English dictionary is a (0+ / 0-)

                      primary source. Wikipedia is a secondary source at best, and more generally a tertiary source. It is not authoritative. Primary sources are authoritative.

                      In addition, the blockquote you cited here from the Wikipedia page is actually a quotation from the Heller decision, which is itself a secondary source vis-à-vis the meaning of words in 1789.  And the blockquote omits what immediately followed in the text of the decision:

                      But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic.
                      D.C. v. Heller,  128 S. Ct. 2783,  2794 (2008) (Scalia, J.)

                      In other words, Justice Scalia is not saying that the verb "to bear" meant, in the 18th century, "to wage war." Neither is he saying that the phrase "to bear arms" meant "to wage war." He is saying that the phrase "to bear arms against [someone or something]" was an idiom that meant "to wage war". That is a far, far cry from your original claim, which has now been thoroughly discredited.

                      You stated that the verb "to bear" -- not the phrase "to bear arms", let alone "to bear arms against" -- meant "to wage war," not "to own, carry, hold or possess." You have provided no authoritative evidence, indeed no evidence whatsoever, to support that statement. You have now, when presented with actual evidence, authoritative evidence of the actual contemporaneous meaning and usage of the verb "to bear" -- which the evidence shows is precisely what I said it is -- backed off of that original statement by, inter alia, pretending that our "disagreement" is instead over whether "to bear" means "to carry" or "to use."

                      I think an apology for being smug and obnoxious whilst entirely wrong is in order, before we proceed any further.

                      •  A pointless mistake on my part. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon

                        "to keep and bear"....ARMS....I didn't know the high school game being played here required I complete that which was obvious.  "to keep...arms"  AND "to bear....arms".

                        That was the context I was actually thinking and defending and was an assumption on my part.

                        That said:

                        Do you agree or disagree, when I substitute your definition of "to bear" into "to carry", it would then negate the entire premise of the amendment itself?

                        As I've shown:

                        "You can keep and carry arms."  

                        And since this new statement says nothing about actually "using" then it could mean exactly that we cannot ever use them but only keep and carry them.

                        Either we have a protected right to use force or we don't.  

                        Either we can wage war or we can't.

                        I did present evidence, you declined to accept it.

                        Here ya go:


                        noun versus verb:

                        verb (used without object)
                        to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.
                        In any analysis, the final part of said amendment does unequivocally state:

                        "Shall Not Be Infringed"

                        Making our debate truly moot.


                        To keep and carry vs. to keep and use/wage war

                        Either one: shall not be infringed.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:04:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This is not an apology: (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          I didn't know the high school game being played here required I complete that which was obvious.
                          Simply saying what you actually mean will suffice. When you say things that are untrue or wrong, expect to be challenged. When you are proven wrong, as you have been here, be magnanimous, accept it and learn from it rather than passive-aggressively deflecting blame.

                          You did not present evidence, and here you continue to present "evidence" that is not evidence, that neither says nor means nor proves what you think it does.

                          The blockquote cited here from the page you linked is a definition of the verb "to arm," not the verb "to bear," and not the phrase "to bear arms." It is also a modern definition, not a contemporaneous 18th-century definition. Moreover, that very page which you linked, but I am compelled to wonder if you actually read, in fact does define the idiom "bear arms," thusly:

                          a. to carry weapons.
                          b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces[.]
                          Not only is your "evidence" not evidence, it says, means and proves the precise opposite of what you claimed. You cannot expect me or anyone else to simply accept "evidence" which you yourself have not bothered to examine with any degree of care or diligence.

                          Further, I never claimed or implied, anywhere, that "no one can ever use a firearm." You made that up as well. What I did say, and explained in great detail, was that the "right to keep and bear arms" is a property interest, not a liberty interest. In order to understand this, you would first have to understand the nature of property rights. What is of critical importance here is that regardless of whether "to bear" means "to carry" or "to use," use is a property interest as well.

                          Property rights have been described by many scholars as a "bundle" of rights, which apply to real estate, chattels (personal property), and intellectual property (works of authorship); different property types have different bundles of rights, and which specific rights apply depend on many things, including whether the property is owned by the bearer or merely lawfully possessed (as in a leasehold estate or bailment).

                          Property rights with respect to chattels include inter alia the right to physically possess the chattel, to transport it, sell it, give it away, convert it, alter it, use it, exclude others from using it, and destroy it. The right to use a chattel is one of the property rights that the owner/possessor has in that chattel. And a gun is, indisputably, a chattel. Accordingly, to say that "the right to keep and bear arms is a property right" is not to say that "the right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to use arms," because use is a property right.

                          As magnanimity escapes you, I believe we're through. Goodnight.

                          •  Lecturing me on what you want me to do? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            You can't be serious.  Wow.

                            "to bear arms" is not a property right, it is an act. We have the preexisting right to act with our arms that we possess.

                            There are two parts of this amendment, "to keep" or possess or own and then "to bear"....arms...

                            You are correct on the first part but not the second.  You cannot rewrite settled law here.  We've always had the right to use wage war... be it for self defense or defense of others or for defense of our Nation/State...that "use of force" is only restricted to lawful purposes...note I do not say "legal" purposes.

                            Your argument that this right is exclusively a property right is null and void:

                            The Ratification Documents:


                              "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

                                This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

                            As I outlined in the diary above, "to bear arms" wasn't just to mean "to carry" but to use arms to kill others with or to wage war.

                            If this concept is foreign to you, might I suggest you read that very well documented diary I wrote quite a long time ago.  The original version of the 2nd A was modified to omit the final phrase of protecting religious people like the Quakers whom will not wage war.  For the reasons Mr. Gerry outlined in the quoted section above.

                            The concept of others "bearing arms" in place of those religiously scrupulous was also discussed and debated:

                            19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
                            See how this works???

                            To Keep and Bear Arms was to protect liberty, both individually and collectively and our very First Congress understood this all too well.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:43:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You cannot "prove" with secondary and tertiary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            sources that which is disproven by primary sources. That is especially true when every secondary/tertiary sorce you've cited so far, when examined with even a modicum of scrutiny and diligence, demonstrates the precise opposite of what you are claiming.

                            "to bear arms" is not a property right, it is an act.
                            That makes no sense whatsoever. Your difficulty with English grammar and syntax is second only to your difficulty with sourcing. The "right to bear arms" is a property right. "To bear arms" is to exercise that right.

                            You've provided absolutely no authoritative, primary-source evidence whatsoever that the phrase "to bear arms" means anything other than "to carry weapons" or "to be a member of the military," now or in the 18th century. There is no "act" contained in the meaning of that phrase, no matter what the various right-wing think tanks upon which you apparently rely exclusively for everything you "know" are telling you, no matter how much the NRA and the gun industry are  paying them to tell you. Simple English grammar and syntax prove otherwise.

                            I know how much you despise pointing out that which should be obvious, but murder is an "act." So is robbery. So are assault, vandalism and extortion.  Surely you do not have a "right" to "use" your "arms" to commit murder, robbery, assault, vandalism or extortion. Of course not, and of course you did not mean to suggest otherwise. You did use the phrase "lawful purposes," but (1) the phrase "lawful purposes" does not appear in the text of the Second Amendment, and (2) the Second Amendment does not enumerate what those "lawful purposes" are, nor specify which "acts" (let alone "purposes") are "lawful" and which are not. In other words, the text of the Second Amendment does not by its terms provide a "right" to any particular "act," except to carry weapons or to be a member of the military.

                            Moreover, even if we stipulate that "to bear arms" means "to act using arms" -- which again, you have failed to prove -- then the phrase "shall not be infringed" is negated by the concept of "lawful purposes." The latter is a qualifier that limits the former. What you end up with is, "shall not be infringed, so long as those arms are borne and used for lawful purposes."

                            Which, indeed, is perfectly reasonable; the law has always picked up where the text of the Constitution leaves off. That's what the law does; that's its purpose. The Constitution doesn't tell us what those "lawful purposes" are, so the law fills in the blanks. Whether the law gets it right, is a separate argument.

                            Any "right" that exists to commit any "act" (other than "to carry weapons" or "to be a member of the military") does not derive from the text of Second Amendment. Whether such "rights" exist or not, and what they are, is not the point. The Second Amendment provides only for property rights in "arms." Anything more than that has been added to it and grafted onto it by the law, and by interested parties.

                            I'd like to continue, as this is actually quite interesting, but based on your comments I rather doubt you've actually read anything I've written here, and I am thus wasting my time.  Hence I'll finish here and allow you the last word, if you like.


                          •  Word salad...I've read what you've claimed (0+ / 0-)

                            I do not agree with your semantics.

                            If "to bear arms" didn't mean "to wage war", why did our First Congress debate that specific point?  That is a primary shows their intent and what they believed "to bear arms" actually meant in the context used.

                            As for the red herring about "stealing, assault, vandalism", etc...that's all it is...misdirection.  The difference you fail to accept here is "lawful" vs "legal".  Lawful would be what the citizens understand and believe.  Legal would be the acts of our representatives.  The two different meanings do battle in our courts when juries are made to understand the actual authority they have.  As in the case of the "pot guy" in New Jersey being acquitted of drug charges.  I'm sure you've heard of the concept of "jury nullification".  This is where, We The People, have the ultimate authority to decide what is lawful or not.  I do recall a DA in the midwest couldn't get grand juries to indict their fellow citizens for drug charges, for years, those citizens understood their ultimate power to deny arbitrary "legal" definitions.

                            I do not believe any jury would acquit me if I used a weapon to assault, murder, steal or vandalize a neighbor.  I would be "waging war" that was not lawful.

                            So that you can understand the difference. Here's another example, a father in Texas beat to death a man raping his 4 yr old daughter, he was never charged by a grand jury for the murder, hence his act of war, was lawful.  And in this instance, he used his bare hands as "arms".

                            What you authoritarian anti-rights activists are attempting to do here is move the goal posts to restrict the 2nd A to what you want it to mean.  And then to move public policy to such an extreme point that it means the opposite from what our common law system has already established.  This is what you wish, in a nutshell:

                            "You can only "keep and carry arms", but you can never use them.  

                            And you never read what I actually wrote.  Why did our First Congress debate, "to bear arms in their stead"???

                            If they weren't talking about "waging war"???  The Quakers do "bear arms" as in wearing them, they do kill livestock as needed but the will not "bear arms" in war.

                            As for the unusual theory that the 2nd A grants me the right to be part of the militia, I find that unsupported in any of the historical documents I've ever read anywhere.

                            The constitution does not grant us anything, it does grant our creation limited authorities.

                            As for your "purpose of the law", might I suggest this most excellent interview, so that you can expand on your understandings of what the law has become, despite your naive beliefs?

                            "Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald on how the law is used to destroy equity and protect the powerful"

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:33:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  I should clarify: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You can't have the "liberty" or the "freedom" to own or possess something that you first have to pay for (i.e., give up property you already own); you can't be "free" to own or possess something that someone else owns until you pay for the right to own or possess it.

          •  Both missing the point (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, theatre goon, gerrilea, DavidMS

            One can "keep and bear arms" with no more than a pointed stick, one can have a right to free speech with nothing more than a voice and one can have the right to be secure in their home even if it is nothing more than a shoebox in the middle of the road.

            Having money to spend lets you improve the quality of how you express these rights, and being able to do something better because you have more money to spend on it is simply common sense.

            The right to keep and bear arms does not require the government give you a weapon any more than your right to free speech requires the government to buy you a printing press. In both cases, you do have the right to spend money to acquire these things as a means of expressing that right.

            The debate is merely the extent to which you can do so and under what conditions.

            •  I think you mean "exercising," not "expressing." (0+ / 0-)

              The phrase, "expressing that right" doesn't make sense, so I'll assume you meant "exercising that right."

              The right to free speech does not include a right to own, hold, carry and/or possess any consumer product. The text of the First Amendment simply does not say that.

              The Second Amendment, however, does explicitly and specifically provide a "right" to own, hold, carry and/or possess a particular consumer product. It does not give you the right, be it a positive or a negative right, to do any particular thing, let alone do any particular thing with that product. (Except perhaps take part in a state militia, but that's a separate topic and discussion I don't really want to have.)

              The right to keep and bear arms does not require the government give you a weapon any more than your right to free speech requires the government to buy you a printing press.
              All that is true. But it's neither here nor there. Ownership and possession of things, be they guns or printing presses, are property interests. The First Amendment does not protect property interests, viz., it does not state that "Congress shall make no law abridging" the ownership or lawful possession of any particular product. The Second Amendment does do that, explicitly.

              Moreover, neither the First nor the Second Amendment, nor any other part of the Constitution for that matter, provides for a "right to spend money," let alone to do so for any particular purpose. The "right" to engage in commerce, like the right to vote, is generally understood to exist, but like the right to vote, it is not explicitly enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

          •  So there is no freedom of the press... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            because a printing press must first be purchased?

            Your logic, applied to the first amendment, fails spectacularly.

            •  I've explained the difference at length, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              including the inaptness of the analogy, elsewhere in this thread. If anyone's "logic" "fails spectacularly," it is not mine.

              The First and Second Amendments are not the same. The "rights" they respectively create and protect are not the same. The way they respectively create and protect them are not the same. Start from there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site