My point is, no, she might not have "revoked" the second amendment, but she'd certainly be in a position to make it _toothless_, and she has shown an inclination to do just that. There are several ways, historically successful ways, to take the spirit out of a law without actually taking the effort of repealing it, and several have already come to pass. One example I gave is from the nation of Mexico, while the rest of the examples are domestic whittlings of the second amendment.
And for the last hundred years, the Supreme Court has required the states to abide by most of the same constitutional rules as the federal government, which is probably why Utah isn't officially Mormon.
(I, personally, don't mind that New York has such a draconian law, for themselves. It just means that's a place I don't ever want to live...like Russia,... or Sudan.)
As for the double standard. I don't have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle UNLESS I DRIVE ON THE PUBLIC STREET. Nor is there a requirement that I insure a vehicle that is never used outside of private property.
And "Freedom isn't free" means you must constantly fight to retain freedoms or they are lost. Keeping gun grabbers out of the white house is part and parcel of that. It's not the same as "your freedom to swing your first extends only as far as the tip of my nose," although that, too, applies.
Finally, let's look at "trained and competent" again. Any sixteen year old can get a driver's license. It takes being eighteen, and a background check showing a clean record, to purchase a gun, in a gun friendly state. Who decides what qualifies as "trained and competent"? I keep remembering back to the Jim Crow poll tests when I hear people say that about guns. If given the opportunity, certain politicians, heck, a good chunk of the nation, would require a prospective gun owner have a virtual master's degree in gun us in order to qualify. Like asking a black man to prove he can read Latin before he can vote in elections. It would quickly devolve into a thinly guised mechanism for disarming just about everyone. That NY CCL permitting system is designed to drive off would be CCL permit seekers by including a test that covers such a broad range of errata that very few people can hope to pass. If a sixteen year old had to pass a similarly difficult written driver's examination test to qualify only bus and truck drivers would be on the road today. At least legally. But the individual _privilege_ to drive is so popular that no one would institute a more difficult test for fear of losing the next election. (I, personally, think those tests are coming, just as soon as the machines are reliably better than human drivers, and as commonplace as air bag equipped cars are today.)
46
@niels0827
My point is, no, she might not have "revoked" the second amendment, but she'd certainly be in a position to make it _toothless_, and she has shown an inclination to do just that. There are several ways, historically successful ways, to take the spirit out of a law without actually taking the effort of repealing it, and several have already come to pass. One example I gave is from the nation of Mexico, while the rest of the examples are domestic whittlings of the second amendment.
And for the last hundred years, the Supreme Court has required the states to abide by most of the same constitutional rules as the federal government, which is probably why Utah isn't officially Mormon.
(I, personally, don't mind that New York has such a draconian law, for themselves. It just means that's a place I don't ever want to live...like Russia,... or Sudan.)
As for the double standard. I don't have to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle UNLESS I DRIVE ON THE PUBLIC STREET. Nor is there a requirement that I insure a vehicle that is never used outside of private property.
And "Freedom isn't free" means you must constantly fight to retain freedoms or they are lost. Keeping gun grabbers out of the white house is part and parcel of that. It's not the same as "your freedom to swing your first extends only as far as the tip of my nose," although that, too, applies.
Finally, let's look at "trained and competent" again. Any sixteen year old can get a driver's license. It takes being eighteen, and a background check showing a clean record, to purchase a gun, in a gun friendly state. Who decides what qualifies as "trained and competent"? I keep remembering back to the Jim Crow poll tests when I hear people say that about guns. If given the opportunity, certain politicians, heck, a good chunk of the nation, would require a prospective gun owner have a virtual master's degree in gun us in order to qualify. Like asking a black man to prove he can read Latin before he can vote in elections. It would quickly devolve into a thinly guised mechanism for disarming just about everyone. That NY CCL permitting system is designed to drive off would be CCL permit seekers by including a test that covers such a broad range of errata that very few people can hope to pass. If a sixteen year old had to pass a similarly difficult written driver's examination test to qualify only bus and truck drivers would be on the road today. At least legally. But the individual _privilege_ to drive is so popular that no one would institute a more difficult test for fear of losing the next election. (I, personally, think those tests are coming, just as soon as the machines are reliably better than human drivers, and as commonplace as air bag equipped cars are today.)