We Need the Dialog on Guns but Let's be Clear...

I think it important we have the dialog in America on deaths and guns, but I am tired of having the dialog with arguments that have been ruled on by the Supreme Court as if they are still waiting to be resolved.

Until the constitution is legally changed when they rule, that is it. You can cite the dissenting opinions until pigs fly, but they remain the opinion of the side that lost.

Certainly we as a people can move to change the constitution as our founders were brilliant in allowing such, yet making it hard to do so.

WITH THAT SAID there are two items that continue to be argued on the 2nd amendment that HAVE made it to the Supreme Court.

Click to enlarge

They are the notion that the 2nd amendment applies only to those in the military by virtue of the clause "a well regulated militia", which has been deemed by the court to mean THE PEOPLE, not the National Guard or the military. (See image to left showing the opinion of the court as written by Scalia)

Click to enlarge

The other is the notion that modern day weapons do not apply to the 2nd amendment once again with the court opinion clearly stating that is not so. (See image to the right showing the opinion of the court as written by Scalia)

Many, having found out that the militia is defined as the individual, switch tactics to attack the words "well regulated". I would remind that our 2nd amendment right has been regulated and for quite some time, BUT that regulation cannot "infringe" our defined right.  Banning something is most definitely an infringement, while there remains now as in the past, many regulations and requirements on this right.

I have included the ENTIRE Supreme Court opinion of of Heller v Washington D.C. where this was addressed. You can find dissenting remarks against what I highlight in the photos, but they remain the remarks of the side that did not win.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

By all means have the debate to make things safer and yet retain our rights, but these two arguments are without validity if we are going to follow the laws of our land.  Using them over and over again simply stalls real discussion.