4 ms·

"Validity" or "advisability"? I think the amendment seems fairly clear to me. I, too, disagree that it should be enshrined in the constitution, or even that it

"Validity" or "advisability"? I think the amendment seems fairly clear to me. I, too, disagree that it should be enshrined in the constitution, or even that it should exist as a right in such an unrestricted form. But there's no doubt that it's in there, and we already have a process for changing the constitution. If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would push to invalidate all laws that limit the ownership and carrying of guns or any armaments by private citizens. This is really the only thing that would force us as a nation to come to some sort of consensus on what the bounds of gun regulation and legislation should be, on a constitutional level.

lutorm 7y ago
I disagree that the amendment is clear. It is so obliquely written that it took the Supreme Court over 200 years to conclude that it, in fact, conveys an individual constitutional right to own a firearm.
- jki275 7y ago
  The plain language of it clearly enshrines an individual right. No one seriously believed otherwise until the Jim crow era, when it became popular to write laws that were understood to apply to only one group of people and specifically sought into disarm them so they would be unable to defend themselves from the KKK.
- andrewla 7y ago
  The plain language is clear. The courts have always taken to heart that part of the role of government is to "promote the general Welfare". As a result, they respect that there is a balance between the right enshrined in the second amendment and the general welfare clause, which can have a common sense interpretation to protect the people of the United States from unnecessary harm. This is reasonable as a principle of justice, but it means that we are prevented from achieving consensus on the bounds of Congress's and the several state's power to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms unless we amend the constitution to make those boundaries clear. My approach above is a bit scorched earth, but I think there's a consensus to be found between the anti-gun people and the reasonable-gun-control people that might exclude the gun rights absolutists, but result in some sensible middle ground.

lutorm 7y ago

I disagree that the amendment is clear. It is so obliquely written that it took the Supreme Court over 200 years to conclude that it, in fact, conveys an individual constitutional right to own a firearm.

jki275 7y ago
The plain language of it clearly enshrines an individual right. No one seriously believed otherwise until the Jim crow era, when it became popular to write laws that were understood to apply to only one group of people and specifically sought into disarm them so they would be unable to defend themselves from the KKK.
andrewla 7y ago
The plain language is clear. The courts have always taken to heart that part of the role of government is to "promote the general Welfare". As a result, they respect that there is a balance between the right enshrined in the second amendment and the general welfare clause, which can have a common sense interpretation to protect the people of the United States from unnecessary harm. This is reasonable as a principle of justice, but it means that we are prevented from achieving consensus on the bounds of Congress's and the several state's power to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms unless we amend the constitution to make those boundaries clear. My approach above is a bit scorched earth, but I think there's a consensus to be found between the anti-gun people and the reasonable-gun-control people that might exclude the gun rights absolutists, but result in some sensible middle ground.