*crickets*

anyway...

are you saying that the only way to have prevented columbine or those "other things" is with wiretaps? i've never said "no guns, no VT massacre".

that's a joke, right? When we need the citizenry to defend themselves against a threat, we'll all just run to the local gun shop and tell them that the laws prohibiting gun ownership (which are constitutional under your interpretation) are suddenly unconstitutional and you can buy guns because the sleeping second amendment suddenly woke up?

That's the whole point of the second amendment . . . the right is protected at all times, because if it's not protected until we "need" it, by then it's too late!

I don't own a gun and am not likely to in the near future. I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions, background checks, etc. But to say that the 2nd amendment is "dormant" is dangerous on so many levels . . .

What if the Supreme Court decides that the 4th amendment is also dormant? "The government's had a pretty good track record lately, we don't see any abuses, so it's not really applicable in our time." (Justice Hardline, writing for the majority.)

did somebody watch red dawn a few too many times?

it's not actually dormant, it is effectively dormant. IF a law was passed restricting gun possession, i just don't see if being turned down. and when people like darkhorse challenge it due to their particular circumstances, it would likely be overturned for them.

and if/when the time comes that we all need a militia, it would be overturned and i doubt it would be enforced anyway; we're already at war anyway. the amendment was for war frm the outside, not the inside.

There is a price for freedom....

do you write faux news headlines? what's the substance of this comment?

I have read the Constitution numerous times and I can't find anything in there that says, or even implies, that clauses can go dormant.

If clauses could be declared dormant, why do we need an amendment process?

straw, did i say "effect" or not? what i mean (is there an echo?) is that the right conferred by the 2nd, has no teeth anymore. it's as active as any other part of the constitution but the right people claim isn't what actually exists.

You know...nevermind (biting my tongue.)

The substance is that it's true. There is a price for freedom, and sometimes bad things happen when those freedoms are abused either by the mentally ill or the criminal (or both).

I know you would love to legislate the America into the perfect utopia based on how you feel that we should live.

Seems to me that contrary to your continual mantra that you're nonpartisan and the perfect "devil's advocate," that you're a person with a superiority complex (insert political term here) who believes you know better how we should live our lives and that your opinion is far more intelligent and thoughtful, and that we're all foolish tobacco gnawing, NASCAR-loving, pickup drivin', ignorant rubes who need you to think for us.
No thanks, Ron.

As stated previously, I have no dog in this fight since I don't necessarily agree that all guns should go without registration, but your continual holier than thou attitude gets tiring; extremely tiring.

Are there other Constitutional rights that have no teeth anymore?

Where do you get this from?

Where can I go to learn logic like that?

probably, but i really don't know. but back to THIS issue...


from logic. the 2nd is about providing a militia. we don't need a militia. when we do, call me.

rainier, do we need a militia? when we do, call me. times have changed.

We don't actual assemble anymore either. Blogs on the internet are not assemblies as the framers meant it.

Ergo, the first amendment protections do not apply there.

I see the logic now. Very interesting.

Why do we need to amend the constitution then? Times have changed, just declare a clause dormant (as you say) and move on.

To use one of your favorite phrases, did you read my post #719371? Re-read it and get back to me. While you're at it, you should read the federalist paper quoted elsewhere on this (or the other) thread, and maybe some history of the revolutionary war. You'll see that the purposes of the framers in adopting the second amendment are every bit as applicable today as they were before.

Straw, clearly you're no scholar of the Constitution. Haven't you read Article ZZZZZZ, the "dormancy" clause?

"When the Congress shall determine that times have changed, rendering any clause of this Constitution dormant, it may pass such laws as would otherwise have violated such clause, and such laws shall remain in effect until the dormant clause awakes from its slumber. No person shall wake up a dormant clause without approval by two-thirds of the Congress, or Ron."

No, I missed that clause. Was that in the Constitution or in a judicial opinion that Ron read somewhere?

It was one that he wrote!

uh oh, the foreign invaders are coming. grab your 9s fellow citizens!

Actually...the closest thing to militias we have today are our repsective State's National Guard units...

what's the purpose here though? the government may not infringe on the way that people may gather. in modern times, people gather on the internet as well as in person.

the 2nd amend deals with arming the citizenry to protect from foreign invaders. in modern times, there is no such need to fear any abridgment; we do the invading now.

they are clamoring for BODIES, not a means to protect themselves from foreign invaders.

Ron, was the most recent appeals court decision on this issue decided in favor of restricting gun possession?

And therefore, you have the power to declare the 2nd amendment null and void.

WHat about the 4th amendment? That was adopted because the Crown could enter your house at any time, or arrest you for any reason.

Since we did away with the British monarchy, is there really a need for the 4th amendment now?

i forgot SCOTUS became known as the "rubber stamp" branch of government.