|
My suggestion is to stop thinking of them as "gun rights" or "rights about guns". In my opinion, polarizing the second amendment to be 'about guns' loses much of the dynamic behind the reason for the amendment being so important to begin with. It also shifts focus away from the fact that an attack on any amendment effects them all, which too many people including elected officials seem to not understand.
The 2A is about "guns" to the vast majority of folks who oppose the fact that people have firearms; as such, it seems ok to limit that thing that is only about "guns" to them and it can be made to sound reasonable, instead of what it really is: an unreasonable effort to curtail a right by unconstitutional means; in my definition, any effort to weaken the integrity of any right is at once both unconstitutional- as it also weakens others along with it, thereby using the document to weaken itself, in this instance "infringing" what is clearly to not be infringed- and also breaks rights up into smaller chunks that are more easily assailed in the future.
In my opinion of course
|