No Carry Permit

[MaconGuns]

A few votes won't do it, it takes, the house, the senate, the president and 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution. That is a tall order.

yup but its happened before right?

 

[MaconGuns]

You put it more eloquently and in fewer words than I am capable of. As gun owners, however, there is a tendency to be reactionaries whereas the left is proactive. I don't agree with them, but I'm not Chinese either and quote Sun Tzu's The Art of War tactics. So, this is what I observe from the left to be true when it comes to your Rights:

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Frederick Douglass, former slave

Perhaps these coming months will open the can of worms.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

yup but its happened before right?

It has, but a Ratification Process requires 2/3 of BOTH houses as well as 3/4 of the states, and then and only then can the President sign it all into law...

Not gonna happen any time soon. It's happened, but the process is so hard to do, which was that way on purpose... The Founders didn't want whatever Administration that was in power at any moment, to just change things on a whim. It has to have nearly universal support from multiple branches in order to have a hope of passing...

 

[MSCHRIS]

Perhaps these coming months will open the can of worms.

Unfortunately, if it happens it is the fault of the right for not being proactive. With the next ten days off for many, they should devote a few hours thinking up new alternatives to gun control. Will those proposals become law? Probably not, however; if you have counter-legislation to put on the table, the anti-gunners get nothing or you get something.

 

[WyldeDime]

There is no amendment in the Constitution that says you have the right to drive a car

I believe the 9th amendment covers that.

 

[MSCHRIS]

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579, 155 Va. 367 (VA 1930).

These people disagree with your proposition:

http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/travelcites.htm

Off topic, but it would make a good conversation on its own.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579, 155 Va. 367 (VA 1930).

These people disagree with your proposition:

http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/travelcites.htm

Off topic, but it would make a good conversation on its own.

I would say that you have the right to travel, yes... And if you own a horse, cart or automobile, have the right to use it for said travel...

But not to be pedantic... It does not, to me at least, mean that having the car is a Right.

If it is a Right to have a car, and you cannot afford it... are you still entitled to one?

I liken this to the argument that some folks make, where they claim that healthcare is a right. ACCESS to it, perhaps, if you can pay for it. But the argument always becomes, if it is a Right, then it must be someone's job to provide it to you...

 

[MaconGuns]

Is it the same as the right to bear arms just not the right to buy a gun. I know the wording in law can be twisted easily by some but the right to ride a horse is pointless if you dont have the right to own one.

 

[MSCHRIS]

I would say that you have the right to travel, yes... And if you own a horse, cart or automobile, have the right to use it for said travel...

But not to be pedantic... It does not, to me at least, mean that having the car is a Right.

If it is a Right to have a car, and you cannot afford it... are you still entitled to one?

I liken this to the argument that some folks make, where they claim that healthcare is a right. ACCESS to it, perhaps, if you can pay for it. But the argument always becomes, if it is a Right, then it must be someone's job to provide it to you...

While we do not own the cars we drive down the road, we pay for it. There is an 18.40 cents per gallon federal excise tax on gasoline and state taxes that drive that to an average of 29.76 cents per gallon tax.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10

This is not inclusive of tag, emission testing, federal taxes on tires, etc. There is no "Right" to own a car. If you read the thread, that has been explained. Not being pedantic, being real here. Read the thread and then join the conversation.

 

[MSCHRIS]

Is it the same as the right to bear arms just not the right to buy a gun. I know the wording in law can be twisted easily by some but the right to ride a horse is pointless if you dont have the right to own one.

In the state of Alaska many years ago, they had a law about pot. You could smoke it. You just couldn't raise it, buy it, or sell it. One comedian had a skit where he's pulled over by the cops. A cop asked where he got the pot. The comedian looks puzzled and replies as if asking a question. "Found it?"