Posted on 03/21/2008 6:29:24 AM PDT by Pistolshot
No apology was necessary but it is certainly accepted.
As to the rest of your post—I dunno.
I could argue either side if I step back and think about it, but whether or not there should have been a Bill of Rights, the fact is that there is one and we have to deal with it and its good, bad, intended and unintended consequences.
At the founding, if they could have done any better than they did, I’m sure they would have.
They accepted slavery in order to give birth to a new nation so to fight the BoR and kill it in it’s infancy would have been a waste.
They did the best they could with what they had at the time and it was a damn fine job they did, despite some weaknesses.
All the anti-gun zealots I know are salivating at the ‘registration argument from the hearing. So far, they do not realize their ‘collective’ argument is about to vanish like a mist in the wind.
Right. The Declaration of Independence already stated it, and with great clarity. A Constitution is not expected to have a blatant statement amounting to “and if this all doesn’t work out, you can just terminate everyone trying to implement it”. Between the DoI and 2ndA, it’s pretty darn clear for something that shouldn’t need saying.
It looks like Heller may not be the only gun rights question to go before the Supremes. SCOTUS takes new gun case ... is this a Heller tea leaf?
Kennedy also agreed with the dissent opinion written by Clarence Thomas and seconded by Scalia in the Gary Small case, in which those justices would have given foreign courts the powerr to strip US citizens of their econd Amendment rights.
Most particularly telling: that they wanted to use the *reasonableness* of foreign legislation as a guide as to the applicability of the statute, rather than any constitutional authority.
Either that, or the Bill of Rights that protects them will.
Good post.
Fact still remains that unless the SC dances around the point as it did in Miller, it can’t rule flat out against the second amendment.
If it does it will have effectively nullified its own authority by throwing out the concept of natural rights which is the authority for the constitution which is the basis of its own existence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.