Quote:
Originally Posted by exceltoexcel
I'd bet nearly everything I own on it. Individual right will be implied. "Reasonable" restrictions allowed. Arms and Shall not be infringed ignored...
Now... I wouldn't have even thought about backing off of the machine gun thing but I would've changed the subject quite quickly.
Something like...
They can be banned legally, but we have been lazy, rather than banning it correctly we passed unconstitutional laws! To ban machine guns or allow their regulation we only need to amend the constitution. A proper finding of all arms carried by anyone at anytime will set the legislative bodies into quick action to resolve the true issue. A new constitutional amendment that brings the country to compromise. All the states and legislators of this great country can agree that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that are intended to cause serious injury and/or death, especially on a large scale, should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. If the vast majority agree in banning or regulating flame throwers, hand grenades then we as a country would have that. This goes as well for machine guns. However, we would then all have to agree to the individuals right to own semi-automatic weapons and to allow at least some provision for the carrying of firearms. This new amendment would end the confusion and bickering of both sides and set the rules in stone unless and until we as a country felt that it was necessary to revisit the constitution again. This court plays an intricate role in correcting our lazy approach to "reasonable" gun control.. By a clear ruling, not on what the country wants or needs but on the 2nd amendment itself as it was written, we should finally see that legislative bodies of this country, and the states rise up to give the people a constitutional amendment that we can all agree upon. A narrow and avoiding ruling will only prolong the distrust and hate of both sides, dividing the country on an issue that should be resolved here and now...
|
W..W..W..WHAT??!! With that response, you could have saved a few breaths and just simply said, "I'm sorry I brought this case up your honors, please reverse the low courts decision, thank you..sorry..". I won't pick that statement apart as it was hypothetical, but if your intent was not to back off, but to respond and change the subject, maybe something like," No your honor, I believe 'shall not be infringed' means exactly what it says. And that is what this case is about, DC infringing on it's citizens right to keep and bear arms. Their restrictions have made it virtually impossible to own any gun for any reason and the lower court was right to strike it down as unconstitutional. We have great faith that your honors will uphold that decision.....".