Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Fair enough, but this means that rights are not absolute. There are no degrees of absolution. If rights were absolute, Americans could not be imprisoned nor sentenced to death—ever—not legally, anyway.
|
again, we're not imposing limits, we're talking about losing that right through due process of law. limits or restrictions would be like saying you have the right to life here, here, and there, but not here or there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
That said, other rights must have similar potential to be "lost." For example, one's right to bear arms could be lost if a "due process of the law" determines that the number or type of arms is unreasonable. How does the recent SCOTUS ruling factor in, in this respect?
|
this is incorrect. A convicted violent felon LOST his 2nd Amendment rights because he violated anothers rights. reducing the number or type of arms ownable is a restriction.
Where is the due process of law that says the people can own machine guns made before may 19, 1986, but any machine gun made after that date is illegal?
do you see the difference?