The Supreme Court interpreted as it was guns. It was implied. It is true that what type and how is up for interpretation. But the supreme court did rule that guns were a part of that amendment.
And the Supreme Court in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson ruled that "separate but equal" was constitutional by a vote of 7-1. It was then overturned later in Brown vs. Board of Education.
The Supreme Court did rule that guns were part of it, but the next challenge doesn't mean the next Court will agree that guns are part of it. The point being, we don't have to repeal an Amendment, nor do we have to write a new one. We simply have to pass a law which will pass the Supreme Court challenge. That's it.
Please note: I say "that's it" as if it will be easy to do so. I'm not saying it is. But it certainly is easier than amending the Constitution.
I was talking about repealing it or creating another amendment to supersede it.
I know you were. And I was saying we don't have to do that to have meaningful gun control in this country. Because you don't have to ban all guns to have quality gun control, you just have to ban the dangerous ones and make it more difficult to obtain the others. We put limits on Constitutionally protected rights all the time. How the 2nd Amendment has been considered different all these years is beyond me.
Still hard to do, more so with legal precedence going one way. But I was more trying to get Yazloz to understand current interpretation of that amendment. Unless this part was not included or something else about the ruling is different it also says this. (Bear in mind I haven't read the full case or ruling yet, only part of it. I am not using the below as an official argument.)
However, I want to read the entire ruling before I use this in full. I am more pointing out what the Heller case held, I still need to read the whole case. No telling how long that will take me. But feel free to state some things if you already know what I am trying to read into.
I understand completely what you were trying to show. I was just trying to show that just as easily as the Supreme Court can read into the Amendment something which does not exist, they can also read out of the Amendment something which does not exist.
Because Americans have the attention span of squirrel. Those issues are important to me and in effect i will continue to talk about them whenever I have the chance to. Also, Americans tend to avoid the most difficult things and easily forget. Few focused on those things in any other shooting..so why would they now?
On the contrary, I think quite a bit of focus was placed upon the Aurora shooter and the mental difficulties he has. But, aside from a report of Aspergers, which by itself would indicate a LESS likely shooter as those with Aspergers are far more likely to be reactive in their aggression than proactive, we don't have any indication of any mental defects Lanza may have had, at least to the best of my knowledge.
So right now, of all the things we know, the fact this guy entered a locked school by blowing the locks open with an assault rifle carrying a 30 round clip and proceeded to shoot every deceased person multiple times with said rifle is far more important.
Great, mental health is important. But it's not the issue at root here, it's something to blame to avoid talking about the issue at root. Which you are trying to do by repeatedly insisting that firearms in America are a settled, finished, and utterly ineffable issue and we should work on mental health instead.
I do have to disagree with you on this...I think mental instability is one of, if not the important, root issues in these shootings. However, like you correctly have mentioned many times, it's not like mental illness only resides in America. Mental illness is the reason many of these murderers perform their acts, but they're only made capable of doing so because of the ease in acquiring a gun. Without a gun, they are simply just mentally unstable people, who pose a much less serious risk.
But again, as I just mentioned, I've yet to hear any positive confirmation this man had a mental disease which lends itself to becoming a mass murderer. The only thing I've heard is Asperger's, which is not a reason someone would do what this guy did. I'm not denying there's a great chance he was mentally unstable, I'm just saying I've yet to hear the confirmation of that.
