A sentence from 250-year-old English that the Supreme Court had to deconstruct and make a ruling on what it meant? That's what you would call "crystal clear?" Agree to disagree, I guess. The issue isn't infringement, the issue is the purpose of the guns. I would maintain that the purpose of the guns is for a well-regulated militia to have and use in a military conflict, whether that's overseas or against a tyrannical American government. Saying the second amendment protects every instance of gun ownership feasible is ignoring half the amendment... and pretty much all the historical context behind it.
It ain't broke. No need to fix it. Found this bit in the Heller decision that you might enjoy. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.
There's something very religious about guns. Not sure why. I don't believe that legal gun ownership is necessary in any way whatsoever. Given the abilities of our military and police, one can live a happy safe life in the US without owning a gun. On the other hand, if one wants to ban machinery that kills lots of people, one would look first at automobiles, not guns. Guns in the hands of responsible, sane people don't kill at a particularly high rate. Compromise isn't a dirty word. It's the basis of our society. Refusing to compromise is not, in the long term, a successful strategy. You might win a few battles, but eventually, you just get marginalized and ignored. barfo
Having a fixation on the constitution is another religious thing. It wasn't handed down from God, you know. Some guys wrote it 200+ years ago. It's not reasonable to expect it to explain every detail of 21st century life. Things have changed a bit since then. barfo
Amend it. It doesn't have to explain every detail of 21st century life. It only has to restrict government from taking away your right to free speech (among others). I would guess you care about that one. So it's a who's ox is gored thing, right?
Not sure what your point is. If there was a good reason to restrict free speech, I guess I'd be all for it. Like if they said I couldn't shout 'fire' in a theater any more, because people might get killed in the stampede. So yes, I think amending the 2nd amendment is going to be the ultimate solution here. I'm just saying that the gun lobby might be better off agreeing to some common sense restrictions in law rather than having the restrictions written into the constitution. barfo
Who decides if there's a good reason to take away our rights? Obama? Romney? Obama because Romney did it in Massachusetts? I don't want any part of either one of them (or anyone else) deciding for me. Deciding your rights, no problem.
Oh yeah. How do you feel about some "common sense" restrictions to abortion rights? Any room for compromise?
The 2nd isn't broken, it's NY government that is. It's too bad the recourse is only to overturn the law. It really borders on treason to disobey the constitution like this.
If you don't want other people deciding on your rights, you really should move somewhere else where you can sit by yourself and play with your own stool. In the real world, society determines what rights you have, not you. Sorry to have to tell you that. barfo
Maybe we should just form a politburo like you seem to want and let them decide our rights. In this country, we've only had government taking away rights we already had, not giving us new ones. It's only a matter of time before they take away one that is dear to you.
To be clear... Obama refused to say he wouldn't use drones against citizens on US soil. Seems to me that's a few rights taken away. You know, that pesky one about right to trial by jury of your peers, the other pesky one about right to face your accuser, the other pesky habeas corpus one. We had a 4th amendment right against search and seizure without a warrant, but I suppose you think that was "given" to us by government so it's "ok" to take it away. You know, so the government can listen to your phone calls and read your emails and your access your browser history (and camera). You'll get what you ask for.
yes, yes, the government could be looking at me right now using my camera. Big deal. Also, aliens could be targeting the earth right now with a giant death-ray which will kill us all in a couple of milliseconds. Be very afraid. Sorry, just not that interested spending the remainder of my life worrying about the monsters under the bed. barfo
