Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Lemur]

Sure, yeah, as I've said many times in this thread, that interpretation is how we roll. It's a settled thing. What amazes me is the sacred cow aspect of even suggesting there might be an alternative reading. If I had any idea how freaked out that would make people, honestly, I would never have brought it up.

[Conradus]

Sure, yeah, as I've said many times in this thread, that interpretation is how we roll. It's a settled thing. What amazes me is the sacred cow aspect of even suggesting there might be an alternative reading. If I had any idea how freaked out that would make people, honestly, I would never have brought it up.

If I just read that line, the point of the amendment seems to be to guard the state against foreign intrusions. Only subject states aren't free. A tyranical goverment still has a free state. But I don't think that view has ever been accepted?

(European here so)

[Lemur]

And nobody pays any attention to the 3rd Amendment, which is just sad.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And nobody pays any attention to the 3rd Amendment, which is just sad.

It took me a while to remember, but some people actually do care about the 3rd Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sure, yeah, as I've said many times in this thread, that interpretation is how we roll. It's a settled thing. What amazes me is the sacred cow aspect of even suggesting there might be an alternative reading. If I had any idea how freaked out that would make people, honestly, I would never have brought it up.

Have you not noticed that we treat it as a sacred cow because it is a sacred cow? It's not like we are bubble yum fans who secretly prefer bubblicious (which is clearly better). The idea that you would target the second amendment with the narrowest possible meaning which is ahistorical suggest that you could use the same standard with our other rights. You seem to be suggesting that you support the 2a, but could just as easily support the view that it isn't what we think it is. You treat the foundation of our Republic and its values with a glib passivity. Passivity has seldom proven to be an effective defender of rights and values.

Trust that we would be substantially irked if you suggested that we have freedom of assembly, but not to groups larger than 3. Freedom of Religion, but not to irreligion. Freedom of speech, but not that which is deemed controversial. It can be rationally argued that a core reason for a right to bear arms enacted so shortly after fighting off tyranny was included in the event that this would happen again. It is odd and unsettling that you would suggest this as though all arguments were created equal. One of the many reasons why stare decisis includes both a collective and individual right for multiple lawful purposes is because that argument is more logically and historically compelling. I would hope that, while an argument could be made for the alternative reading, you recognize that the current reading is more compelling. NOT merely equally compelling but historically less fortunate because of a bad flip of the coin.