On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:15:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

dhall987 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
life?

Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.

Second best is probably what we've got.

I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does". The whole
concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
bizarre to me. Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
work.

Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
government. Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.

So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
making that change.