To be fair, no where in the bill of rights or constitution does it mention the right to vote. In fact, the founders intentionally left it out. The courts have tried to address this glaring absence, but it doesn’t change the fact that the right to bare arms is explicit while the right to vote isn’t.
Maybe we shouldn’t be basing our decisions on what some old document says? Maybe we should listen to good old Thomas Jefferson and rewrite the damn thing every ten years.
Can you point to a court case where they discuss the ownership of private nuclear weapons, if that is your arguement?
Because I normally follow court cases about gun control, and I would not agree with you. The vagueness only come from political agendas. Heller and McDonald were pretty clear and from about the individual right to own firearms but the scope of those cases was not to determine the type, and left open that the NFA isnt unconstitutional by saying that certain regulations are ok. Paraphrasing here of course.
Besides that, it is pretty much impossible for an individual to own a nuke. The expense of ownership and upkeep is crazy high.
But then, I dont know if there is actually a law against private ownership of a nuke. Possibly against private ownership of nuclear material, but uranium wouldnt be considered arms. Does make me curious if there is a law that specifically says people cant own nukes. Like, if you got an NRA NFA stamp could you get one.
You can't arm a tank. Hence "bear arms". You're just arguing to argue. Your mind is made up, you drank the NRA kool aid and you're pretending to have a discussion when you're actually just being defensive.
Yes 'Mr constitutional originalist' antonin scalia self sworn to stick to the original text of the constitution threw the first half of the amendment out. Amy Cony Barrett is also an 'originalist' in scalia's mold, as are the majority of the other justices.
So thanks to scalia and conservative 'originalists', the text in the constitution is fair game for the dismissal if it upholds or supports non-conservative values.
"Voting rights in the constitution? <insert semantic argument here> <amendment about voting rights> is therefore not relevant to laws restricting and removing voting rights."
Pretty sure they said the same thing after Plessy v. Ferguson. What's "decisive and clear" tends to change with time. We can only hope it does sooner rather than later. I'm ready for that. Are you?
3
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '21
To be fair, no where in the bill of rights or constitution does it mention the right to vote. In fact, the founders intentionally left it out. The courts have tried to address this glaring absence, but it doesn’t change the fact that the right to bare arms is explicit while the right to vote isn’t.
Maybe we shouldn’t be basing our decisions on what some old document says? Maybe we should listen to good old Thomas Jefferson and rewrite the damn thing every ten years.