Tuco: the Federalist papers are a commentary on the Constitution written by the people who wrote the Constitution. So yes we do have to amend the Constitution to pass federal gun control laws. Which part of "the peoples right to keep and bear arms" don't you understand?
Because of England's experience in the 17th century with the conflict between Parliament and the Crown, English legal and political theorists (Blackstone, Harrington) taught that in order to prevent the militia from being subverted to the use of a tyrannical government, it was necessary that the whole populace have the right to keep and bear arms.
"The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not the militia's right. It is an individual right, not a collective right.
So, YOU bear guns because WE had a conflict between our government and crown? That is nuts. And we didn't feel the need to bear guns after our conflict.
dr who, if the constitution needs changing, just get on and change it, or at least have a proper open discussion. Laws are always amended and updated. If it needs the framework changed, it's surely about time that it was.
Tall Mike, I agree with the bureaucracy of Europe being a burden, but there were advantages created. It was never going to be an easy decision to leave. However, I think it did show democracy at its best. Ultimately it's all about the vote of enough individuals, we are all equal as individuals and collectively the will of the majority is what democracy is ultimately about. It doesn't matter if you are rich, poor, black, white, Christian or Muslim. At the end we are all equal.
However, when the democracy is turned into a gun fight, that is when it breaks down. If the US citizens were to have the option of limiting guns and having their voices actually heard as individuals my guess is they would vote to get rid of at the least assault rifles and semi automatic weapons and have background checks.
The part I don't understand drwho is how you continue to parse the 2nd amendment to suit your stance. You earlier stated that the militia meant all people, and that well regulated only pertained to militia. You can't have it both ways. The amendment if taken in it's entirety should be interpreted as yes, the PEOPLE have a well regulated right to bear arms. And that should not be infringed. A WELL REGULATED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. That means we can have background checks, ban assault rifles, not let kids have nukes, or tanks, etc.
Also the term peoples is a collectiive noun. It doesn't say persons right.
Personally I believe there should be no restrictions on weapons at all. Why can't I have a thermonuclear device in my home? I won't use it. I just want to make sure my neighbor doesn't nuke me first.
Plus it would be good for the economy. Think of all the jobs we could create. Get your own personal nuke. Roll up Roll up see the show!!!!! Carnage, mayhem, blood. Yee Haaa!!!! More Jobs!!! EMTs Nurses!!! Therapists!!! Yea that's the ticket. drwho?? Dr. Strangelove???
Now if you think that post was crazy. It is no crazier than thinking anyone is going to take away all guns.
Went pretty smoothly, but it did have some virtuals. 16.