Of course, there's a procedure for that change; if you want to change it you use that procedure.
Fact of the matter is, the Constitution protects a fundamental right of the people from infringement. Potential infringements to fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny.
You don't get to ignore those things just because you think its a good idea.
Last edited by Goobieman; 11-17-10 at 01:08 PM.
No one argues against due process being able to take people rights. The difference, of course, is that you lose your right because of someting you have done.Even keeping to the 2nd Amendment, you can lose your "inalienable right" to bear arms quite easily.
The 2A doesnt give you any rights, period.The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you rights to own firearms unless you're a felon.
I do not think that this debate can be either way. The Constitution is simply old old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation.
Of course, restrictions must be, to the dismay of the gun-lovers.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers