The supreme court will soon decide whether restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. The case before the court questions whether the ban on guns in Washington D.C. violates the Second Amendment. The lawyer who brought the case before the court is a wealthy libertarian who says he is not concerned about guns nor laws, per say, but about respect for the constitution. I'm glad that the rights of Americans are being fought for, but at a time when the Bush Administration is ignoring the Fourth Amendment with illegal wiretaps, the Fifth by not giving "detainees" due process of law, the Sixth by not bringing charges to these same "detainees," and the Eighth by torturing and using cruel and unusual punishment, I would hope that the court would have other constitutional concerns.
All the same, the Second Amendment seems to me to be concerned with the security of the State provided by "a well regulated militia," and while our national militia seems to be a bit busy right now, I don't think a guy with a gun fetish is going to be of much help if China decides to invade, or Virginia, if you want to read "state" that way. Maybe they'll rewrite it to say "A house filled with guns, being necessary to the security of a house filled with guns, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." They should also think about rearranging the sentence so it doesn't look so stupid.
1 comment:
Guns are bad.
Post a Comment