In controversial decisions by the narrowest of margins, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is about self-defense and guarantees the right of citizens to possess a gun in the home. The court never mentioned handgun suicides, domestic shootings, children getting hold of guns, guns getting stolen from the home, or gang members taking family guns for a drive-by shooting. It overlooked that these laws were passed by legislative bodies after much debate and then were upheld by many court reviews over a period of 30 years. In the case of Oak Park, the ban also was ratified in a referendum.
Now that's what I call a good summary. And here's what I call a happy ending.
Did you get that, "amend the Constitution" and "change the court personnel," not in that order, I would suppose.
In the years ahead, the courts will be inundated with cases about the Second Amendment pushed by both sides. Sooner or later there will be another Virginia Tech shooting, another Northern Illinois incident, or another political assassination.
At some point America has another tradition -- after trying to work under sometimes onerous Constitutional limits and court decisions, finally opting to amend the Constitution and to change the court personnel.
What's your opinion? Is the mention above that this decision was by the "narrowest of margins," something the pro-gun folks like to overlook? Is the future possibility of amending the Constitution a realistic one?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.