Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Why are we offhandedly discussing as experts changing something that has withstood the test of time for over 200 years?
|
It hasn't at all. If you'd like, review case logs of Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. There have only been two major supreme court cases to directly address the Second Amendment, and they're both well over 100 years old. That speaks in volumes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I don't believe the voting majority -- who understands the "spirit" of the law (rather than the "letter of the law") thinks that the 2nd Amendment applies only to organized militias. If they did, it would've been corrected long ago. The fact that people argue for a "militia only" 2nd Amendment demonstrates that people will always try to use words out of context, but I'm comforted by the fact that disarmament of the US population will never occur, and that those who understand the 2nd Amedment as a God given right to protect oneself represent the majority.
|
We don't vote for supreme court justices. This thread is simply a hypothetical exercise. As for using words out of context, the sentence structure of the amendment as it stands was debated elsewhere.
As for "god given", Christianity predates the US and even guns by quite a long time. I see that as moot.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I'd accept a clarification, but not yours, will. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't deal in specifics, simply because "background check" and "gun crime" are so vague. As a democratic republic of States, we should allow the States themselves determine the criteria for lawful use of a firearm.
|
And how would your amendment read?