Thank you, Mr. Street,
You and Mr. Hodgkin gave, I think, the same answer: strictly speaking, any law outlawing possession of weapons is unconstitutional. Mr. Hodgkin thinks this is mitigated by judicial interpretation. You think, I take it, that the majority of laws are unconstitutional.
Let me ask you then: If we are routinely and systematically ignoring the constitution in all our law making, do you then believe that the current government is illegitimate?
Let me ask Mr. Hodgkin: If the 2nd is open to interpretation, and assuming we rule out extreme views at both ends (all weapons should be legal and all weapons should be banned), then are not stricter gun control laws constitutionally very much on the table?
Finally, as to your question Mr. Street: Why is the second in the constitution? I think I have given my answer: Individuals have a right to bear arms so they can serve in the militia, so they can protect the state. I understand that many people on the board think I am wrong and misinformed or worse, but, interpreting the text is the most simple and straightforward manner, this is what it seems to say. I will confess I also like this interpretation because I agree that a citizen army is very important. |
