The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms correct?

Question

The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms correct?

which is nothing more than the right to protect oneself, wouldn't it be implied that we also have the right to not protect oneself....whether it be by guns, knives or any other device that by using it would protect ourselves. so then why is it by law we have to buckle our seatbelts or we get a ticket. isn't that against our constitutional rights to opt not to protect ourselves?

Answer 1

Driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right. This is why Feds blackmail states into passing the laws they want. This is why the states enact stupid laws and why the local sheriff has a speed trap for all the people doing 5 mph over the speed limit at the end of the month when revenues are short.

Answer 2

Yes. These two have nothing in common with each other. The right to bear arms is to be able to defend yourself against intruders and whatnot. While a seatbelt is for the safety of everyone. Now if you want a real question that has better comparison. Go with why are motorcyclists given the option of wearing a helmet or not; but a motorist is by law ordered to wear a seatbelt? At least in a car you are not going to be skidding against the rocky, cracked (sometimes glass covered) pavement bare skinned. Even if you possibly happen to go through the windshield you end up on the hood. But that would have to be a huge accident to do that kind of damage while the slightest accident can send a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet right into another car or conk them on the head giving them a concussion or worse.

Answer 3

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution deals directly with the right to keep and bear arms. Somehow we finally got a court to agree with the logical interpetation of this amendment (that it is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a STATE right).

So far ... so good. I must have missed the amendment that forbids the government from preventing you from driving without a seatbelt. But, then again, I went to school in the 70's with all of the drugs to do and booze to drink, I might have slept through that class!

As a self proclaimed Confederate, I believe that you have the right to not protect yourself as you see fit!

Don't wear a seatbelt, frankly I don't give a d***! Just make sure that you check the "organ donor" box when you renew your license! We need the parts you can provide after you "get up close and personal" with a phone pole when you are launched through the windshield of your car at 60 MPH!

Answer 4

Your vehicle can be used as a weapon called vehiculiar homicide. Seatbelt are the assurance of safety. Wearing a seatbelt relies on intent to be a safer driver and not reckless. Just like having a gun, if the safety is off then there could be a problem corcern the handle of a handgun, whether it was criminally intent or not. Same a the seatbelt, having the seatbelt on is a safety precaution. There could be intent involved. So it is safer to have a seatbelt on and as well as the safe on a handgun.

Answer 5

Your constitutional objection to seatbelt laws is unfounded. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The state grants you this privilege through a driver license. The state can set the rules for using your privilege. The state can also set penalties for not following those rules. Which, in the state of Washington will be $124.00 starting 07/22/07.

Now to the real reason seatbelts are required. THEY SAVE LIVES AND REDUCE INJURIES IN TRAFFIC COLLISIONS!
And yes, I have heard about your second cousins neighbor Billy Bob who was killed because he was wearing his seatbelt. The benefits of seatbelts far outweigh the problems they can cause.

Answer 6

We do indeed have certain constitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms, but we do not have the right to do whatever we want. In the case of driving a car/riding a motorcycle, that is not a right. You are granted a license by the state you live in to operate a vehicle based on your knowledge of the rules of the road and the ability to abide by them. If you do not or cannot abide by the rules your privilege to drive will be revoked (or you get a ticket). The constitution does not say anything about one's right to drive.

Answer 7

exciting element, and that i'm no longer in all probability confident what the respond on your question is, yet indexed under are some issues to think of approximately: The states, no longer the federal government, handed those seatbelt rules, and particular, a state regulation may well be declared unconstitutional, however the factors for evaluate are diverse. in simple terms because of the fact the form ensures a perfect, does not unavoidably assure the inverse of that perfect. The Constitutional perfect to undergo arms isn't unavoidably the perfect to guard oneself.

Answer 8

Heck, I don't care if you use one or not. You'll find that there is no constitutional right to drive if you get enough tickets. Plus your daily constitutional may be in a jail cell for awhile.

You want to give up your right to sue if you are hurt by someone else fault and you weren't wearing a seat belt?

Answer 9

You have to keep in mind the framers of the constitution weren't driving cars...they were riding on horseback and in carriages. The right to bear arms was conceived over 200 years ago.

Now, I do see your point on the matter but a law is a law.

Answer 10

Even before perusing the US Constitution, there is a natural right to individual defense of self or others which is not dependent upon any document written by man. Weaponry, being integral to defense, is a necessary part of this natural right. The beasts of the field bear fangs and claws. Being endowed more with brains and less with brawn, man makes the tools for his defense and bears those.

Now, turning to the US Constitution, the very first thing to note is that the rights in the Bill of Rights aren’t a list of all of your rights you are entitled to and you have no more than that. Quite the contrary. The Bill of Rights simply affirms and discusses some of your innumerable rights, but you still retain all of the rest of your innumerable individual rights nonetheless. Amendment IX clarifies that distinctly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” You have a natural right to individual defense of self or others and the tools of necessity for it. You retain it. It is not denied or disparaged. So affirms the Constitution of the US.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. While liberty and property that are taken illegally (without due process of law) may be regained by means other than physical individual defense, the thing that many times protects life from being illegally deprived, by criminals or otherwise, is physical individual defense. This amendment affirms that my life may only be taken legally. Therefore, I have the right to defend my life from illegal attempts to deprive me of it, with such tools as are necessary for such defense.

The Second Amendment affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment among ten amendments concerning individual rights, commonly referred to en masse as “The Bill of Rights”. The phrase “the people” in it means the same thing as “the people” means in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment distinctly references the federal, collective, and individual entities as “the United States”, “the states”, and “the people”.