ArmedBear wrote:Some things were "givens", and wouldn't have been discussed because there was no difference of opinion. I believe that the right to use deadly force in self-defense was a "given" in the human rights philosophy of the time and place. Thus, you need to look beyond the immediate discussions around ratification, because an undisputed principle would not have been restated. Before TV, I don't think that politicians made speeches before empty chambers about subjects not being debated, just to "go on record," as they do now.
The Fourth amendment states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The authors of the 4th amendment did not make any statements about tobacco use in the home, but I think it would have been their philosophy that the federal government had no power to regulate or ban tobacco use in the home. It was a given that tobacco use in the home would be a private affair, totally outside the control of the federal government, even if the authors never discussed tobacco use within the home when drafting the 4th amendment.
I would say that the federal government has no power to ban tobacco use in the home, even today. We could argue whether states could ban tobacco use within the home and they may be moving in that direction to protect the children. I would say that tobacco use kills many more people than firearm use does, and I'm not talking about criminal misuse. Banning handguns does virtually nothing to retard criminal misuse of handguns by criminals.
Thus, if people believe the federal government, or the states, can ban gun possession in the home by lawful citizens, then they must also believe that the federal government, or the states, can ban tobacco use and alcohol use in the home by lawful citizens. The latter two items are far more dangerous to our lives, our health, and our children, if one looks at the statistics. We already tried the ban on alcohol. I don't know if it was ever ruled unconstitutional for the feds to ban alcohol use. However, the chaos that ensued from their attempts to do so made it so that the feds eventually saw the errors of their ways. This led to so much violent crime that any perceived benefits to the public were soon swamped by the rising tide of criminal activity surrounding the prohibition on alcohol. I suspect the same might happen with firearms, should the feds ever go that far.