DeNiro, on 11 January 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:
Well I`ve seen all the canned answers where people continuously cite the 2nd ammendment. That really isn`t an intelligent argument to me. That document was written hundreds of years ago and has no real basis today. There has to be a limit on arms, otherwise people could walk down the street with RPG`s tucked in their coats.
And don`t tell me the government has no right to tell you what to do. Because the government tells you what to do every day of your life. That`s what laws are.
I was just hoping to get a unique perspective from someone who clearly has a passion for guns. But I guess I`m not gonna get it. Too bad, cause you're gonna need a better argument than the second ammendment if you wanna keep your assault rifles.
Pretty clearly the Second Amendment has currency as SCOTUS clearly stated in 2008 in the Heller case. They also gave it a new expansive reading finding an independent individual right to bear arms for self-defence purposes - something the minority says was not supported by history or past case law.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The majority in Heller was clear that government could not ban weapons commonly used for self-defence (in that particular case handguns) and that safe storage laws were unconstitutional.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
Seems to me that the Second Amendment is alive and well and that the US Constituion remains the supreme law of the land as interpreted by SCOTUS.