Gun Legislation

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution you have the right to own a semi auto high velocity assault weapon.

Yes, the Constitution says we can. It says we have the right to keep arms. Semi auto high velocity weapons are arms. Labeling them "assault" doesn't change anything. And all "arms" can be used to assault.

That's for the people and laws to decide.

They did decide and make a law. The 2A. If the people don't like that, they can amend the Constitution.

They drew the line with full auto quite some time ago and I don't see you beotching about that.

"They" were not "the people" acting by Constitutional Convention. Judicial "interpretations" can, as in this case, be erroneous. And they can be overturned or made null by later decisions. They are not as immutable as constitutional text. And even if that line you speak of were truly and constitutionally drawn, then your semi auto high velocity "assault" weapons would not be prohibited by that line.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"They" were not "the people" acting by Constitutional Convention. Judicial "interpretations" can, as in this case, be erroneous. And they can be overturned or made null by later decisions. They are not as immutable as constitutional text. And even if that line you speak of were truly and constitutionally drawn, then your semi auto high velocity "assault" weapons would not be prohibited by that line.

You're just highlighting the problem with the amendment as it is written. I agree though, we should scrap it and amend.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're just highlighting the problem with the amendment as it is written. I agree though, we should scrap it and amend.

Well . . If you scrap it, there is nothing left to amend.

I don't have a problem with how the Amendment or the Constitution as a whole is written. I understand "why" the Constitution was written. Progressives no long believe that "why" is valid.

That is why they prefer that the Constitution should be scrapped. Of course, it is not feasible at this time to do that, so they peck away at it by "interpretation."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well . . If you scrap it, there is nothing left to amend.

Any amendment will be seen as scrapping by some.

I don't have a problem with how the Amendment or the Constitution as a whole is written. I understand "why" the Constitution was written. Progressives no long believe that "why" is valid.

That is why they prefer that the Constitution should be scrapped. Of course, it is not feasible at this time to do that, so they peck away at it by "interpretation."

That's what the Judicial Branch does. It's why we have decisions that are obvious and that are controversial. If it was so easy judges would be more like bookkeepers.