http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/03/1206621/-Guns-Are-Property-Not-Liberty
A while back I did a thought experiment.
Starting from the premise that the Second Amendment Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is impermissibly infringed by (1) background checks, because they delay, obstruct, and potentially prevent my acquisition of firearms,and (2) any "ban" or restriction on any particular model, type, or category of firearms, because it prevents me from having the specific, particular weapon that I want, which is my right irrespective of whether any number of other weapons are available to me,
I posed the question: If (1) and (2) are infringements, for the reasons stated, then why is the price of guns, i.e., the requirement that I give up my money in exchange for my rightful weapon before I can "Keep and Bear" it, not an infringement for the same reasons?For example, if I want an AR-15 but either can't afford the $1500 price tag or don't feel that it's worth that much, doesn't that price create an impediment to my having it? If I don't have $1500, doesn't that effectively "ban" that weapon, for me?
i'm luvin this the right wing likes to playwit the words to gettheir way like "enhanced interrogation" (torture)
that question deserves and we should demand an answer from the nay sayers. prove to Americans that rights you take are ok, voting, but rights to buy a bazooka or a tank or nuke sub is within your rights to bear arms.
Of course gun prices don't violate the Second Amendment. Of course the experiment fails if (1) and (2) are not actually infringements of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, because the premise that gun prices infringe is dependent upon the premise that background checks and discrete weapons restrictions infringe for the reasons stated.The purpose of the experiment is not to demonstrate one way or the other whether gun prices are an "infringement" forbidden by the Second Amendment. They're not. The purpose is to think through, explore, and understand why they're not, by finding a principled distinction between gun prices and "infringements" (1) and (2), in order to deepen understanding of exactly what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, and isn't.
wonder if the logic will be loss o those who hjust want to have a gun?
