DC gun ban struck downFollow

So you would have been ok with a 5-4 ruling that a ban on all handguns doesn't violate the 2nd amendment?

I suspect that most Americans do think the fact that 4 out of 9 justices on the Supreme Court don't see a total ban on handguns as a violation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as a pretty major concern. Your attempts to explain this away as unimportant isn't going to detract from that IMO...




So you disagree with the position of 4 of the 9 justices, but aren't really concerned about it. I suppose you'll wait to be worried when it's 5 out of 9 then? Wouldn't that kinda be too late?

Isn't that sort of the point of having 9 justices, so that they can debate and have differing opinions? sh*t, here I thought I was seeing democracy at work. Of course you guys elect your judges, which seems crazy to me, so who knows.

Really? please elaborate. Oh wait, I'm asking too much. I'll just go with you're an idiot on this one.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2008 9:44am by Xsarus

'Cause you're a tool?

The Framers were smart cookies but they weren't pyschics or seers or holy men whose words are scripture. The fact that we've had to change the Constitution an additional seventeen times after the initial ten is testament to that.

Well you're welcome to prove me wrong by explaining what you mean in terms of the first amendment needing adjustment. Or at the very least show the similarities in the comparison to the second amendment in terms of technology directly affecting the amendment, seeing as I don't think you actually want an adjustment.

The framers of our constitition were some dang smart men that recognized they could not hope to set in stone laws that would govern for all time. They were not seers and knew it.

The constitution is vague on purpose.

It should be constantly interpreted an reinterpreted to continue to meet the need of our changing society.

- The second amendment, as I choose to understand it, was added to insure the people were able to defend themselves against those that may do them harm, whether that be a tyrannical government or a neighborhood thug.

- If guns are decidedly unsafe to society then their use should be limited or banned as necessary.

The above two statements don't directly relate to each other.

Actually, I think the fact that we've been able to change the Constitution seventeen times is testament to the fact of how smart the framers actually were. It's a living document--they designed it for the express purpose of allowing it to evolve as things changed over time.

Which is why a black man is no longer counted as 3/5 of a person, and why women now have the right to vote. These are things which were unthinkable at the time the framers wrote the Constitution, and yet they structured the document in such a way that it might someday encompass things that were unthinkable at the time.

You know what else was unthinkable at the time? That firearms were so common and had proliferated so widely that they were no longer used merely for defense, but as the offensive weapon of choice for thugs and criminals. HAD the framers ever envisioned such a potentiality, sheer common sense would have told them to build some firearms restrictions into the Constitution. But luckily, those smart guys constructed the Constitution so that should the unthinkable ever come to pass, their successors could tweak the Constitution to address the problem.

So this whole notion of the Second Amendment being written in stone and completely unalterable is absurd. the Constitution is MEANT to be altered when it no longer works, and as long as the Second Amendment allows firearms to be commonly available to every mischief-minded thug, it f'uckin' ain't workin' and needs some of that tweaking.

Hmmm, a radically far-right website says gun control is bad, so it must be!

Nice try, sh'it-for-brains. Try linking an academic study, not propaganda.

ETA: oh, ding 2k!

Edited, Jul 3rd 2008 9:56am by Ambrya

The position that gun ownership reduces crime may be valid, but what you linked isn't a study, and makes no attempt to take into account any other factors that might have influenced the situations they mention. When you refer to studies please link a study, not a blog or an article. My biggest problem with gun control is that I don't think criminals generally care about the gun laws much. I don't however see this as a reason to not have gun control, it just has to be part of a bigger picture. I haven't done a lot of reading on this, so I would actually like to see some of the studies you are referring to.

This is a bit sidetracked though, my fault I guess as I asked for a cite. The issue we were on before was whether this or any amendment could be open to changed interpretation. As I understand, you don't think they can be changed. Am I misunderstanding you?