Quote:
Originally Posted by Cube Inmate
The amendment only codifies (vaguely) what was already an existing "right" set in earlier common law and, apparently, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (says Google). There's nothing preventing a common-sense judiciary from interpreting reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, despite this amendment you hate so much. Unfortunately there IS something preventing them from being *asked* to make an interpretation -- primarily Republican politicians and their voters/donors.
|
the bottom line is that the right to bear arms was written as a response to the concept of repression. So as nice as it is to say, we merely need to ask for a re-interpretation, the minute that mechanism comes into play the population will interpret it as a repressive action, and scream about it.
They wrote the perfect bear trap with the right to bear arms, because there's no way that you can sell changing it without people feeling that the government is trying to gain more control and thus repress their rights.
I believe that even if you loaded the bench with Liberal judges that they would make the changes that we would like to see.