mike1921 said:
Yes it does. America's way too devoted to blindly sucking the cocks of the founding fathers. The constitution can be amended for a reason, because the founding fathers realized they're not perfect and don't know what technology will look like in hundreds of years. As the second amendment specifically mentions that the purpose of giving people the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, which is a much different statement back then than it is now. Back then guns were inefficient, could kill much less people with a lone madman, and the military was pretty much just dudes with same guns (although navies and cannons existed). The second amendment serves no purpose in this century, where military technology is just miles ahead of anything a civilian militia can use and a lone civilian can kill so many people. To use the second amendment in this day and age is to not understand its purpose.
But really, isn't interpreting what was meant by the constitution the job of the supreme court? Wouldn't them looking at the clear intention of the second amendment and saying that it doesn't apply to people who are a danger to society enough?
"It's unconstitutional" is a valid reason for why a law shouldn't pass at the moment, but it should be seen as an outright demand to think "should it be unconstitutional?" and if not to fix it. It shouldn't be seen as a "oh, well then let's give up".
Because that would cripple us in a major way? Also, arriving on time isn't a luxury. Our economy sort of depends on us having a work force actually....working.
Hence why it's called the second _amendment_. Look a few post above you, I've no qualms with the government going through with amending the constitution. But whatever law they want to pass they have to do in form of an amendment, as any other is automatically squashed by the second. If it can be circumvented this way, I see no reason why the first, fourth or the fourteenth can't be in a similar fashion. And yet people always get uppity when those are at stake.
By the way, you do realise that the US has its military and that there's also a standing army (a "militia" of sorts) of each individual state, which must by law be supplied with the exact same hardware that the military is, right? People get guns, rifles, shotguns etc. and the standing army gets military hardware so as to resist the military should the government decide to use it on its people. This is what the second amendment also protects.
It most certainly would be enough for the Supreme court to do so. So if it's such a clear cut case, why haven't they?
See my first paragraph.
You can leave early. If 300 people last year are worth banning assault rifles or passing illegal laws, then surely 30000 people are worth lowering the speed limit. Especially since the former is a right codified (not given) by the US Constitution.