mikecohen;842610844 said:
Amend the 2nd Amendment. Even just making it clear to the idiotic Supreme Court that the first phrase of the 2nd Amendment actually means something; or clarifying that the right to bear arms does not include those capable of creating mass destruction. Does anyone believe that all Americans have the right to own nuclear weapons?, chemical weapons?, biological weapons?, guns that can kill 100 people in seconds?
Even Scalia rejects your assumptions that the second amendment has no constraints
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the Constitution's right to bear arms isn't absolute and could be changed in the future.
Scalia, a card-carrying conservative and stalwart of the Court's right-leaning majority, told "Fox News Sunday" that the Second Amendment's language allowing citizens the right to own weapons doesn't mean they can own any weapon they want.
"There are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the (future) time."
In a controversial 2008 decision, the Supreme Court declared a handgun ban enacted by the District of Columbia unconstitutional, but the majority noted that, nonetheless, gun ownership was not an unlimited right, said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in that case.
"It will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible," he added. "Some undoubtedly are."
Scalia was asked whether constitutional protection would extend to weapons used by James Holmes in the Colorado movie theater massacre that allow one to fire dozens of rounds per minute.
"We'll see," he answered. "I mean, obviously the (Second) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear so it doesn't apply to cannons.
"But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be decided."
Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
"My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time," he said. "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."
