Originally Posted by SpcMs
Even if it is the laziest, most trite hyperbole in the history of the gun control debate, that does not diminish its validity.
Actually, it does. NO ONE, save a very extreme few, are making your trite hyperbole of an argument.
Good to hear that "machine gun" ownership is restricted, but where in the second amendment do they make the distinction between hand guns, semi's, machine guns, or my lazy trite hyperbole of an atomic bomb?
News flash... GUN OWNERSHIP itself is restricted, all the way down to bolt action 22 rifles. Look at the tens of thousands of laws already on the books regarding guns and gun ownership. Those rights were lost long, long ago. The real goal of a good number on the left is not keeping guns from criminals, but rather total disarmament of the US population. THAT, my friend, is an abridgement of the Second Amendment.
BTW... did you not know that machine guns are restricted? What do you really know about gun ownership in the States? As far as where things are listed, where are TVs, radios, and the internet listed with rights of the press? Does that mean that freedom of the press does not extend past the actual Gutenberg?
See how nice that works?
Glad to hear all your enthousiasm for the constitution, and rightfully so, but it's obviously open to interpretation and is more often than not interpreted in a political way (which is clearly demonstrated by the frequent 4 vs. 5 votes on the supreme court).
Then why have enumerated limits on government or a Constitution at all? If it does not mean what it says, but somehow continually says what is not there, why have the damn thing at all? It's time to disband the SCOTUS, because that redundant political work could be handled by the Congress.
My point is, it's a political debate: do we or don't we want stricter gun control? The second amendment may carry a lot of weight when testing the resulting legislation, but it should not be part of the underlying debate.
Bullshit. This is a SCOTUS case, testing a Constitutional principle and interpretation. The stakes are much higher than some fscking public opinion poll regarding the issue. This is about far more than a political debate. Just because the people do or do not want more gun control has little to do with the Constitutionality
of gun control. This is why we have the document... and do not abridge some rights based on political winds. Yes, there will be a political debate to match the case, but it severely cheapens our system to make this case a purely political one. But hey, agenda (IANSA, UN, VPC) at all costs, right?