I really don't think that it would be legal to impose such a ban... at least not without re-writing the constitution..

---quote---
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
---quote----

And no government is going to be brave enough to re-write that one.

In fact looking back at all of the governments that the US has had over the last 20 years, I don't think that there's been one that I would trust to do it.

Do I think there is a case for re-writing the amendment.. well you could argue the point, but on the whole no for the reasons given below...

Personally I think that the right to bear arms is incredibly stupid idea (thats another debate, so lets not get sidetracked I'm ONLY mentioning it here as an example of constitutional reform.. ) BUT despite the benefits that re-writing the second amendment might bring to America it would be at the cost of damaging the constitution as a whole. So its better that America suffers the problems associated with guns, than risk tampering with the fundamental principles that the country was built on.

The 1st amendment is even more critical than the second. Changing it not only risks losing religious freedoms, but runs the risk of someone meddling with freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association.

With all aspects of the constitution there are costs associated with keeping to it. Sometimes the costs aren't pleasant at all, and yes we should be aware of them. But for America as a whole they are costs that have to be (sometimes tragically) paid.

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report