By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Puppyroach on 25 February 2018
Edit Thread
sc94597 said:
Puppyroach said:

2. Because you don´t have a choice. Through the democratic process, the people have decided that you as part of that society is obligated to follow the laws that are a product of the constitution. If you wish to change that, becaome part of the democratic process.

2. Okay then. So if the U.S Constitution is the social contract, and it has a process by which it can be changed, why not change it through said process? The Second Amendment is part of said constitution. If we can just ignore that (without going through the defined process) can't we just disregard the whole document? So you either accept the second amendment with the rest of said constitution, or you reject the authority of the constitution. I choose the latter, but still think it is important that the common person owns guns. But if I am working within the confines already defined by a couple dozen men whom died two centuries ago, why would I pick and choose from which things they signed? 

I will focus in the most relevant part here and I mostly agree with you in terms of how the constitution should be handled, but not your conclusion of it.

If we look at the ratified version: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It could be amended to more clearly specify what it refers to (because it is very vague as it is written) nut it opens up for lawmakers to put many regulations on gun ownership. Does it mean that the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms of a well regulated miltia is to be upheld, does it refer to every citizens right to bear arms? What exactly does it refer to?

If we assume that it does refer to every citizen (although that might actually contradict the text), is that right infringed if assault rifles are not part of the picture? If you have the right to own a hunting rifle, you do have the right to bear arms. It does not state "to keep and bear ANY arms" and seem to open up for quite a lot of regulation.

Also, can the right be infringed upon if it come in conflict with life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? No law text is a binary system where we can judge everything in black and white. They must always be weighed with other rights given by society and can sometimes come in conflict with them.

This is why you have elected officials and a supreme court, to make judgements on these matters. But I would claim that the text as it stands at the moment does not, in any way, stand in the way of banning every automatic rifle for example. Aslong as there are weapons available for the citizens to own, that right does not stand in contradiction with heavlity regulating the amount of different weapons available.