Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI fear the courts can do anything nowadays--take weapons, take private property "for public good", whatever that means, so sure, nothing is off the table.
If the courts can gut the Second Amendment as they've done in cities like Washington, D.C.; New York, Chicago and San Francisco, can they also gut the 13th Amendment ban on slavery?
Originally posted by rookedpawnwhat i mean by disputed is that not everyone agrees to it's relevance today, and that it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should be allowed to have as many guns as they want.
What is there to dispute? "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Second_Amendment_and_modern_politics
Isn't the purpose of a constitutional amendment to make the constitution maintain its relevance?
So, if an amendment is irrelevant, then what's wrong with doing away with it?
These US ammendments seem to be treated like holy texts - they must be maintained at all costs. I would've thought that the constitution and its amendments were simply useful working documents for a nation.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterObviously no amendment is "safe".
If the courts can gut the Second Amendment as they've done in cities like Washington, D.C.; New York, Chicago and San Francisco, can they also gut the 13th Amendment ban on slavery?
Nothing is absolutely true and everything's truth is only comparable to the times in which they "are".
So, what was true and just 200 years ago could well be out-dated nowadays.