Peace loving Progressives

[robertlouis]

Is the right to bear arms as enshrined in your constitition modifiable only by an amendment to said constitution or could a simple federal law modify it. or indeed could it be changed at state level?

As per the discussion so far, Prospero, the theory is almost academic, and the likelihood of anyone attempting to pass such a law getting their head blown off would increase exponentially as a result. I'm exaggerating to make the point, but I hope you see what I mean!

[hippifried]

Is the right to bear arms as enshrined in your constitition modifiable only by an amendment to said constitution or could a simple federal law modify it. or indeed could it be changed at state level?

The Constitution of the United States can only be changed through the amendment process. It's the supreme law of the land, & controls the power of government itself. So, if you want to change it, it's no big deal. All you have to do is convince 2/3 of the Congress (both chambers), & 3/4 of the States.

[robertlouis]

The Constitution of the United States can only be changed through the amendment process. It's the supreme law of the land, & controls the power of government itself. So, if you want to change it, it's no big deal. All you have to do is convince 2/3 of the Congress (both chambers), & 3/4 of the States.

I know that's the process, Hippi, but with this particular issue, is it ever realistically likely to happen?

[Stavros]

The right to bear arms is unlikely to be amended; however what individual states can do, as has been mentioned in other threads here, is regulate the access citizens have to weapons and the types of weapon that can be sold. The language of the constitution makes this clause a slippery one to get hold of, rather like the 'separation' of church and state which one conservative historian David Barton claims is not what the Christian revolutionaries intended...both have historical contexts that have changed: the US is not about to be invaded by the British Army, many Americans are not Christian, and so on. Every age defines its priorities in a context, perhaps that is why the Constitution's occasional lack of specificity has enabled it to last so long.

[hippifried]

I know that's the process, Hippi, but with this particular issue, is it ever realistically likely to happen?

No. But that's not to say that a future SCOTUS can't find fault with this latest ruling from 2008. The old ruling, from the '30s, basically said that the 2nd Amendment was a "State's rights" issue, in dealing with the "well regulated militia", & that it was nver intended as a personal right. That was the ruling that allowed the feds to regulate who could buy & own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, & various types of artillery. Everything's still in the air right now. I don't think anybody knows how far the '08 ruling can be stretched.

[TJ347]

I wish assholes would stop guessing at what I would or wouldn't say. If I want to take part in this conversation, I'll deliver my own lines, thank you.

Past participation makes guessing entirely unnecessary. Or do you not already know more or less what I would say to another one of your attacks on GW? Right... That's what I thought.

[trish]

What??? Just don't put words in my mouth and then pretend you're rebutting my argument...that's all I ask.