Tinkering With the Bill of Rights

Clarifying amendments to the Constitutions are generally good ideas; the ERA and Dan Savage’s proposed privacy amendment are good examples of why. So I’m with Morbo in calling for the Second Amendment to be repealed. The amendment, correctly interpreted (i.e. not as an individual right, but as a basis for establishing state national guards) is no problem, but in its gun nut interpretation, as exemplified by the latest ridiculous ruling from the DC Circuit (which, I am not kidding, cites Dred Scott as precedent) is extremely dangerous and limits eminently reasonable gun regulations like handgun and assault rifle bans and mandatory gun registration. Just to eliminate even the possibility of this interpretation gaining favor, we should shelve the amendment and regulate guns like we would any other consumer product (though, to be fair, there are no other consumer products on the market that are anywhere near as dangerous).

4 thoughts on “Tinkering With the Bill of Rights

  1. So I’m with Morbo in calling for the Second Amendment to be repealed.
    The real problem is that the Constitution has been fossilized. A correct description of the actual constitutional order of the US would be very different from the textual Constitution; for one thing it would be much longer. If you argue a defect in the Constitution, then you really put yourself in a catch 22, because you’re implying constitutional endorsement of the opposing position.
    I find it amusing that the same people who keep harping on the second amendment don’t care much for the first amendment.
    I don’t entirely disagree, but still, America has all too many people on all side who are sickeningly sanctimonious about free speech. I completely agree that free speech is fundamental, but the right way to protect it is to keep a distance between it and other issues.

  2. I don’t entirely disagree, but still, America has all too many people on all side who are sickeningly sanctimonious about free speech. I completely agree that free speech is fundamental, but the right way to protect it is to keep a distance between it and other issues.
    I do agree that too many non-free-speech issues are wrongly treated as free speech issues. Like the Denmark cartoons case, for instance. There was no possibility of government censorship there, but some people really cared about that newspaper’s right to uncompromising assholery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s