Mystech said:
Yes, and if they'd intended the right of private citizens to own fire arms to be protected, then they may well have written the second amendment to reflect that wish. Unfortunately they didn't, and instead gave members of a militia the right to own a gun, for the reason that an armed militia is essential to the protection of a state.
Ask yourself, is an armed militia essential to defending your state? Hmm, times sure have changed, in fact a Civilian Militia is in fact more of a liability than anything else, certainly not essential to the defense of anything but the guns that they themselves are holding. In other words the 2nd amendment has, through it's own wording, the enlightened reasoning of our founding fathers, and the current state of our nation, has become obsolete. That doesn't mean that you don't have a right to have a gun right now, just that it's not constitutionally protected, and can be legislated away.
I don't understand how one can assert that a particular amendment, or any part of the Constitution, is obsolete, and as such the legislature can thus ignore it. To my knowledge, there is no clause in the document that states that, as conditions in the country change, a particular article or section or amendment can be summarily disposed of. Hypewaders recently made much the same argument in another, similar thread as Mystech has here. If one can do this with the Second Amendment, this arbitrary changing of the rules without amending the Constitution, what's to prevent this type of action with any other part?
As an example: Suppose Tiassa answers a knock on his door one day. Outside are two young soldiers. One of them says, "Mr. Tiassa, I'm PFC Jones and this is PFC Smith. We are going to be billeting with you and your family from now on. Here is the paperwork, with specifications for our sleeping quarters and meals." Well, Tiassa goes nuts and starts a thread here relating about how the Third Amendment is being trashed right before his very eyes. Only he's having trouble concentrating on his typing, because The two GI's are on their cell phones calling all of their buddies back at the base, telling them about how they're going to be staying with Bob Marley.
Couldn't one, using the same logic as has been used here concerning the Second Amendment, make the argument that Congress could pass such a law allowing for soldiers to be quartered in private homes? One could say, "Well, the Third Amendment was passed because the British were a bunch of tyrants. But we have a benevolent government now, and these are nice American boys, and this will help reduce defense spending."
Of course, I fundamentally disagree with your first paragraph, Mystech. The Second Amendment was intended to give individuals, the people, the right to possess firearms. Even Lawrence Tribe, not exactly a right wing crazy, states that it is an individual right.
I look forward to any comments.
