05-16-2019, 01:20 PM
(05-16-2019, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, so is the concept of the individual right to own arms. That being a relatively new interpretation of the 2A. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but we must remember that the courts interpret the application of all of the amendments. The right to an abortion is held within the rights to liberty as well as against unreasonable searches. We don't actually have a "right to vote" expressly stated in the Constitution, either, only that we cannot have the vote withheld from us for specific reasons.
Actually, the right to own a firearm was decided rather decisively by SCOTUS in the 1800's when they found, as the founders clearly intended IMO, that the "militia" is every man in the country capable of fighting. I understand your overall point and I don't disagree but I think the argument for abortion in this fashion could just as easily be applied to the baby. Also, I feel compelled to point out for those unfamiliar with my posting history that I am very much pro-choice, I'm just capable of seeing the other sides argument.
Quote:My point is that almost every one of our civil liberties is mostly interpretation, some not even taking effect until they are incorporated, some still not effective. So it's a bit disingenuous to say the individual right to own a firearm is somehow based less on interpretation than the right to an abortion.
On this we have to 100% disagree as the right to own a firearm is expressly stated in the second amendment. It's very black and white and is also the only amendment that definitively states that it "shall not be infringed". There is, obviously no mention of abortion in any way shape of form in any amendment.
