QUOTE(sportinlife @ Mar 8 2010, 01:13 PM)

What I meant to imply is that I do not believe the Constitution extends the right to own a gun to everyone, nor does it equate speech with spending money.
Ownership of a gun has a designated purpose, and we already restrict the expenditure of money in many ways. One of them is
income tax collection.If these tax provisions were applied wisely and fairly we would not have the current financial crisis.The tax cuts imposed during the Bush administration so distorted the income tax burden in this country that we may never see another balanced budget until the progressive income tax is restored. That is particularly poignant now because the monitoring and collecting of personal income taxes would be far more fair and efficient due to the availability of computer technology. What is preventing that is lack of transparency determing incomes which is encouraged by over regressive tax rates.
The income tax allusion would have been more appropriate had you pointed out that such tax was unconstitutional and permitted only after passage of the 16th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, essentially part of the original Constitution. Moreover, the debate among the Founding Fathers was whether to make it the First Amendment, as they felt so strongly about individuals having the right to own and possess a gun.
As is the case with every right, from the First Amendment's Free Speech to unwarranted searches, and more, no right is absolute. Therefore, certain limitations or regulations would obviously be constitutional. With respect to the 2nd Amendment, such permissible limitations would be things like gun registration, for example. As long as a regulation or law does not prohibit what the 2nd Amendment permits, such laws or regulations would pass muster.
BTW, we're two days removed from the anniversary of the second worst decision ever made by SCOTUS (
Roe v. Wade being the worst),
Dred Scott v. Sanford. I close by quoting one of the two dissenters (how foreboding that
Dred Scott was, like
Roe, a 7-2 decision that removed the humanity from an entire class of human beings, declaring them property to be disposed of by their owners, but I digress).
As Justice Curtis declares rhetorically in exposing Taney's deviation from originalist principles:
QUOTE(Justice Curtis)
"[I]f a prohibition of slavery in a Territory in 1820 violated this principle of [due process], the ordinance of 1787 also violated it." Further: "[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
QUOTE(BigBlueCowboy @ Mar 8 2010, 04:18 PM)

God, I just love these hypocrites. Not.
One reason among many I'm never going to be running as a "Family Values" Republican (or Democrat, for that matter). My family values suck, just like I do.