I really tire of ignorant NRA gun enthusiasts yelling "Second Amendment, Second Amendment" whenever someone tries to prevent some of the rivers of blood created by gun violence.
Case in point: regulating rapid fire assault weapons and high-capacity clips. The dumbshits, and I use that work with malice aforethough, yell that it is their Second Amendment right to have fun with these weapons and clips regardless of their use in massacres of innocents. That is, their selfish fun, their kicks in which they feel powerful having and firing a weapon that can kill many people in a very short amount of time, is more important than the lives of others. More important than those who perished in massacres and no doubt will perish in the future.
As Mr. Kelly (husband of Gabby Giffords) showed, such limitations would have saved lives in Tuscon Arizona. Even in a mass shooting, perhaps 10 die instead of 20. Isn't that possibility of saving a few lives worth a limitation on your fun? Even one life?
Leaving aside the moral bankruptcy of the fun-with-guns absolutists, they don't know shit about law. Here is a small excerpt of the American Bar Association President's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
While some maintain that the Second Amendment should apply to prevent any regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, the ABA believes that the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits, just as does the First Amendment and every individual right under our Constitution. As it is often noted regarding the right to free speech that there is no right to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater, likewise there are limits to Second Amendment rights, They must be balanced against other rights in serving the common welfare, including protecting the safety of children and all citizens from especially dangerous weapons. It is on this basis that fully automatic “machine guns” have been carefully regulated since the 1930s. As Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion in the Heller case:LAUREL G. BELLOWS, President on behalf of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”The muskets of the 18th Century and other single-shot weapons have little in common with the military-style assault weapons today and the 100-round ammunition drum that was used at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. These are unusually dangerous weapons, which the government may regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. We believe the government has a duty to do so to protect the common good – specifically, the safety of American citizens.
for the record of the hearing on WHAT SHOULD AMERICA DO ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE?
before the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. SENATE January 30, 2013
Heller, some may remember, was the most expansive Second Amendment decision in our history in which the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of precedent and held in a 5 to 4 opinion that a handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.
The decision was heavily criticized for its expansion of the Second Amendment [and likely will be overturned if one vote changes on the supreme court]. Here are a few criticisms from conservatve jurists who think the decision was constitutionally flawed (even though they may like the policy outcome) from a wikepedia article on the case:
Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method – to which Justice Antonin Scalia claims to adhere – would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.wiekpedia
J. Harvie Wilkinson III, chief judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [and noted conservative], consents to Posner's analysis, stating that Heller “encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts.”
But even under Heller, rapid fire weapons and high capacity clips can be outlawed consistent with the Second Amendment. The most expansive intepretation of the Second Amendment in our history allows that.
So don't go hiding your moral bankrupcy and selfishness behind the Second Amendment. The plain fact is that you think that fun with guns is worth the sacrifice of innocents. Own your selfishness and disregard for others! Don't try to hide behind the US Constitution.