Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
That is true, but it doesn't really apply. We are not talking about a legislative body. We are talking about a speech. Even if we were talking about legislation, however, your logic is still not quite on track. You are talking about legal obligations, not rights. The concern is not whether we HAVE to do something, as in your example, it is whether we will be ALLOWED to do something. The logic you presented works the other way in this case. If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D. That is a much more appropriate example in this situation. The logic of intentional exclusion as it applies to this example lends itself far more readily to the idea that anything not mentioned was left out because there is no intention of restricting it.
|
Well, yes and no. As you might imagine, I read this somewhat differently. I agree with your statement that "If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D." However, my statement dealt with requirements, yours with prohibitions. Neither one deals with rights.
Let's take a look at the original quote from the OP:
Quote:
“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.
|
We have to go somewhat far afield into speculation as to what this omission means, and I doubt that either you or I or anyone else will know exactly why SD was not mentioned, absent a clarifying statement.
Anyway, Obama specifically mentioned "hunting and shooting" as part of a "cherished national heritage." My contention is that the omission of "self defense" indicates that Obama or at least his speech-writers do not consider self defense to be part of that "cherished national heritage." My conclusion: this indicates to me a belief that while hunting and shooting are worthy of protection, SD is not (either in the speech writer's mind, or Obama's).
In the realm of legislation and caselaw, consider how the restrictive jurisdictions have briefed out the issue of "whether there is an RKBA outside the home." Those attorneys charged with upholding restrictive laws have consistently claimed that
Heller stands only for the proposition that there is a 2A right to keep and bear arms
inside the home, and only inside the home.
Heller did not deal with carry outside the home, and courts will not (typically) answer a question that was not asked. That said, the omission from the discussion of any RKBA outside the home is being held up to mean that there is no RKBA outside the home.
It is my sincere hope that you are right and that the administration has absolutely zero designs on restricting the RKBA. I do not, however, believe that to be the case.