[–] 8690644? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal Government, any State or Local Government, any Court, or any other entity within the boundaries of the United States. Nor shall the United States enter into any treaty that includes any language that may infringe upon the right of US citizens to bear arms.
As a note, I am pretty sure we also need something to define arms so it includes things that have not been created yet but I am not good enough to do that part.
[–] Bigglesworth45 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
It really is pretty clear. Of course some people don't know what "is" , is.
[–] Kromulent 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago (edited ago)
It hardly matters. You can write the law in the plainest text imaginable and the judges will read anything into it that they like.
If you think I'm kidding, have a close look at the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Like most 200 year old grammar it sounds odd to us now, but it's saying that the federal government does not have power over anything, except what the constitution says it has power over.
150 years later, the feds were telling us we couldn't grow food in our own back yards, for our own consumption, because it had an effect on interstate commerce, and control of interstate commerce was one of their delegated powers. I think this was also the rationale for the federal Assault Weapons Ban. Fucking interstate commerce.
So tomorrow the Feds can pass a law saying that you have to start each day with ten sit-ups, because, well, a healthy workforce is important to interstate commerce, and it would be entirely in line with everything they have done for the last century.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] Kromulent 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Not a bad idea at all, but it does reveal the root of the problem.
If most people agree on how things should be, then you don't need a constitutional amendment to assure it. The bill of rights is there to prevent the government from doing things that are both popular and inappropriate. If the constitution does not work without popular approval, then it's not a constitution anymore, and you just have exactly the sort of mob rule it was designed to prevent.
At its root, it's an unsolvable problem. The basic question of government is, Who Watches The Watchmen? There is no good answer, just several bad answers, and a near-infinite number of even worse ones. We can write all the rules we want, but we always have to remember how important it is to actually follow them
The best we can do is muddle through, tirelessly educating the younger folks, and challenging the older ones who ought to know better. Everything we know, every tradition, every institution, is always one generation away from being lost. It's an endless process with no sure result.
But yeah, it's the best we've got.
[–] jamesed ago
While the left keeps harping on a the well regulated militia they seem to ignore the being necessary to the security of a free state part. When guns are taken away from citizens can we say the government fits the definition of a free state.