So the Supreme court says that an individual has a right to have a handgun in their own home.
But the question is why would a person feel compelled to do so?
The one thing that I believe--and I admit that I am not a legal scholar--that the majority is missing is that the Constitution was meant to be flexible. If it wasn't I would (as well as Clarence Thomas) not even be considered a citizen, or even a human being.
Now I wonder if the Court is now courting (no pun intended) lawmakers to put a law--or even an amendment--in place that would put in no uncertain terms that handguns have no business being in someone's home in this day and age where we do not live under the tyranny of British troops marching in unannounced into our homes.
3 comments:
now that the supreme court has made this ruling, i think it would take an amendment to the constitution to overrule them. and considering the strength of the american gun lobby, i doubt that an amendment will happen in our lifetimes.
thank god charleton heston won't be able to crow about this case, since he died a little less than 3 months ago.
Guns kill how many people in US per year? Much more over time than a tyrant showdown surely.
In most of Europe guns are no-no and some countries don't even let the police have them and it works.
Post a Comment