Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
But perhaps some would rather cling to a belief that the will of the majority shouldnt matter in our representative democracy.
|
That there is a problem, isn't it? From the beginning of this country, it was a representative democracy, or a republic, so that the majority could NOT limit or deny the rights of a minority.
-----Added 1/2/2009 at 02 : 54 : 34-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
What Americans want is absolutely NOT irrelevant...it is at the heart of a representative democracy...as long as it respects the Constitutional rights of the minority.
There is NO absolute right to bear arms...that has been decided.
|
and just like the dred scott decision or kelo decision, this is fatally wrong. People who fear the freedom of others like using the 'no right is absolute' craptastic argument to limit the rights of others they don't like, plain and simple. Because of the overreaching decision making no right absolute, it now comes down to whether a majority of the people feel that a right isn't limited enough. Theoretically, it could come down to 'shall not be infringed' means as long as you carry pepper spray, you're armed, therefore your right to bear arms is not infringed.
'no right is absolute' is probably the most overreaching and abusive judicial precedent ever set in our history