With it or not check out New York, England and Australia.
I don't understand this point.
(actually it says THE) rights to bear arms
Artillery in my front yard, pointed at your house, would constitute arms. Do I have the right to bear those? How about nuclear arms? Those are arms too, I want some for my collection. Should I be allowed to carry an assault rifle on the subway train? I visited my first grader's classroom today, should I have had the right to carry a weapon there too? Any kind of weapon? A hand grenade? Does it make sense to you that I have to register my car but not my gun? And don't statistics show that more people are killed accidentally by guns stored in the home (most of them children) than are saved from criminals through the use of those guns? Answer as many of these questions as you like, I am just curious where the line is supposed to be drawn .....
If the government says, "you can have guns, but we want to know what you have," do I not have the ability to exercise my right to have guns? Much as the government says I can have a car, but I must register it and submit to reasonable safety-based regulations to protect my fellow citizens. If, on the other hand, the government says, "Turn in your guns because we just don't like them and don't think you should have them," then I think the Constitutional right has been abridged.
the Amendment guarantees the right
Unless and until it is changed. The Constitution once protected the right to own slaves, the right to exclude women from voting, and prohibited me from having a glass of beer or wine after work. I am glad those things were changed, though they once expressed national principles which were "inalienable". I would rather the Constitution be amended through a process which requires national consensus on a large scale than have the courts chip away at rights through tortured interpretations of the existing language. |
