Quote:
Originally posted by T-Rav@May 9 2003, 02:50 PM
Colin, as usual you didn't even answer your own question.
|
You're on to me.
I'm sure we have some gun fiends here. What exactly defines a weapons as SEMI-automatic?
I really don't think anyone needs an automatic weapon for self-defense. The concerns of the American founding fathers - that of turning to a tyranny - are indefensible now. I don't think the Band of Southern Brothers militia would do much better than the Iraqi army did against the US army. Where to draw the line? I dunno. Courts decide. I'm cool with it.
To me, the second amendment is symbolic of the importance of liberty. It means that even if it causes harm, that we will hold this concept of liberty with the highest regard. I think this symbolism still moves people. Now I know that is not true for everyone but it is for me. I also believe I have an inalienable right to defend myself. I think we should change the constitution as little as possible and only when it makes the world a better place.
The constitution must reflect the times. The constitution itself provides the methods whereby it may be amended. It was never intended to be an unchangeable document but instead provides a method which makes it difficult but possible to amend. The importance of the supreme court and common law in interpreting the constitution has been key since the early 1800s. So in a sense, if the supreme court deems a law constitutional it is. If a law exists that hasn't reached the supreme court it means there has not been an inconsistency in interpretations in the lower court yet.
My quick summary: The judicial system itself as defined in the constitution and in the famous John Marshall case defines constitutional and unconstitutional and it is subject to amendment. I don't know the particulars but I assume that since the semi-automatic weapons ban has been on the books for ten years, it's passed the tests of the court.
Last edited by Colin at May 9 2003, 04:13 PM