Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie S
That is the proper procedure. A good example is the 2d Amendment. For the more stringent Gun Controles that many Polititians are now expounding, you first need to get rid of the 2d. I can't see that hapenning any time soon.
|
While I agree that the Amendment process is purposefully made difficult to prevent large sweeping changes to the Constitution, I disagree that any particular Amendment gives us unrestricted use of that right.
For example, there is a <nuclear topic> type of pornography that is banned even though it could be argued that it's an infringement upon our First Amendment right. While some may complain about it, our society has deemed it as a necessary restriction upon the First Amendment right that's not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.
Likewise in the Second Amendment, most people would agree that it does not give a private citizen the right to own weapons capable of killing mass amounts of others, such as nuclear weapons or most bio/chemical weapons. Is this a restriction on our right to bear arms? Sure. Is it something that most people view as something unreasonable? Of course not.
Essentially, as with all rights, it's about degree - not an all or nothing proposition. So, I would say that it's entirely possible to enact stricter gun control legislation without going through the Amendment process.
This week's poll: What should the government tax?
DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013 
ASSUP!!! 
