Posted on 06/18/2019 6:39:32 AM PDT by rktman
Democratic presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell is being schooled in the U.S. Constitution after stating on Twitter that since people need a license to drive, the government should require a license to use a gun.
If you need a license to operate a vehicle, shouldn’t you need a license to operate a weapon?https://t.co/V9KERFpFHu
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) June 16, 2019
Swalwell, who earlier invoked the government’s nuclear weapons to threaten those who would resist gun-confiscation programs, said, “If you need a license to operate a vehicle, shouldn’t you need a license to operate a weapon?”
Twitter user Hector Vargas argued that he already has a license.
He portrayed an image of the U.S. Constitution.
Twitter user Reagan Battalion joined in with, “We have a license, it’s called the Constitution of the United States of America.”
We have a license, it’s called the constitution of the United States of America.
You should read it sometime. https://t.co/ngBRloNXvq
— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) June 17, 2019
“You should read it sometime,” the Battalion said.
Swalwell repeatedly has argued for gun control.
“Hopelessness and fear abound in too many American neighborhoods,” he wrote Monday on Twitter. “We will restore hope and end gun violence with my gun reform platform.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Smallwell is the bottom of the barrel candidate. And that takes some doing.
The socialists seem to think it is fine if illegals have firearms!! They keep voting against illegals being reported to ICE for trying to ILLEGALLY purchase firearms!
It seems the socialists just don’t want citizens, we the people to have firearms.
Let’s say government tells us it’s against the law to eat meat. That would supposedly be an agreement between society and each individual. If one individual decides that it is his right to eat meat and has a steak for dinner, he will have to suffer the consequences of the law.
If everyone decides to have a steak for dinner, then it is apparent that there is no real agreement that it is wrong to eat meat, and the law becomes moot.
Laws are only valid when people accept them.
On the other hand, people who don’t know how to drive can create a lot of havoc on a freeway and a driver’s license is not that big of an imposition, so I like most people, accept it.
I also think that a driver’s license probably technically violates the constitutionally enumerated right to free movement.
A license is a permission to exercise a revocable privilege. The Constitution is not a license, in that it doesn’t grant privileges. Rather it is an instrument that creates a central government for the purpose of protecting rights the people and the states already have.
The flaw in your logic is that a DL is a necessity to living (i.e. sustenance). The DL is an agreement between a person and the state in order to use public roads. Also, laws that are moot should be repealed, and there are mechanisms to accomplish this.
I also think that a driver’s license probably technically violates the constitutionally enumerated right to free movement.
Not having a DL does not prohibit your implied right to free movement. It does allow you to use a conveyance on a public road.
I always thought eating was sustenance.
As pointed out before, the right to free movement included the right to ride a horse (a common mode of travel when the constitution was written) and did not just apply to your feet. The common mode of travel today is by “horseless carriage.”
By the way, at least in my state, pedestrian traffic is against the law on freeways.
You are right though, laws that are not true societal agreements should be repealed. However, there are still laws on the books that require a runner to preceed a moving car holding a lamp and warning pedestrians. They are not enforced.
Yeah, especially in New York!
It is. I abstracted your example to a more generalized category.
As pointed out before, the right to free movement included the right to ride a horse (a common mode of travel when the constitution was written)
At the time the Constitution was written, there were few government/tax-payer funded roads. Roadways were typically publicly funded through combined pubic efforts outside of government (bond issue) or were private roads that the public could use. This means that there was no protected right to travel on them as it was a public conveyance. Remember, the Constitution assumed existing rights and left those to the various states or the people to determine their destiny.
By the way, at least in my state, pedestrian traffic is against the law on freeways.
Because it is a government owned/maintained property. There did not used to be laws preventing people from walking on freeways but too many pedestrian deaths led to that changing.
However, there are still laws on the books that require a runner to preceed a moving car holding a lamp and warning pedestrians. They are not enforced.
Implying the legislature is not doing their job in revisiting existing laws for current relevance.
I think there is always going to be a grey line between rights and privileges, whether it is freedom of movement, our right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech or any of the others.
The argument will always be how much is too much and what is necessary to keep the public reasonably safe (and what is effective).
I think it should be our goal to make the grey line as narrow as possible.
I don’t want drunks on the road and I don’t want schizophrenics with guns.
I also don’t want licenses to be used to control the behavior of perfectly reasonable people who will cause no harm to anyone who doesn’t need harming.
Perfectly reasonable line of argument. The problem with implementation, as I see it, is that there are far too many judges and/or lawyers who manipulate whatever good intentions are codified, into something that they can cash in on.
That's human nature, and it's what the fight is always about.
Shapiro v thompson, right to travel unencumbered.
True. We desire to limit the grey area you spoke of but lawyers want to expand it. You also mentioned not wanting schizophrenics owning guns. The only way to hopefully prevent this would be to examine everyone. Not feasible nor would it be considered a reasonable search, ala 4th Amendment. So unless there were a mechanism to instantly provide a psychological evaluation at the time of purchase, this one is an impossibility to enforce.
The fight continues.
My rights are not subject to your ignorant opinions.
#tool
Perhaps politicians should be licensed. If they refuse to uphold the constitution we could levy a large fine or execution for treason against the American people. Then revoke their license.
“It is a privilege. Any official State actor can revoke that privilege based upon the agreement made when the license is issued.”
Your logic is flawed and dangerous to our rights. Your are saying that it is a privilege if a state treats it like a privilege.
Saying that a state can revoke a right by calling it a privilege is ludicrous. Rights remain rights regardless of how a state acts.
Not even close. A privilege is something that is not essential to life or liberty. Driving an automobile on public highways falls directly into that category. No one's life depends upon driving. The various states can regulate driving til the cows come home and there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. Driving is something in which you must demonstrate a level of competency before a State actor before being given a license. Rights do not, cannot require licensing.
Saying that a state can revoke a right by calling it a privilege is ludicrous. Rights remain rights regardless of how a state acts.
Driving was never a right, to say the opposite flies in the face of juris prudence since the inception of These United States. Belief that driving is a right implies that you have specific claim on a portion that you own or control. No such thing exists with respect to public highways. You may own your car and have the right to it as property, but you have no such right to drive on public highways. Once you are licensed, you have the privilege, as agreed upon, to drive subject to State law and posted ordinance.
So long as there are genocidal Democrats like Swalwell in the USA, the human citizens will forever need the means to protect themselves.
Hey Eric, do you need a license to operate a home printing press? Do you need a license to speak in public? Do you need a license to avoid unreasonable search and seizure? Do you need a license to exercise the right of religious freedom? Do you need a license to keep from having to open your home to the Army?
Then why should you need a license to own a firearm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.