Our rights?

My understanding is that it is up to the judicial branch to interpret the constitution, and up to the executive branch to enforce it. That said, I think every administration in my lifetime has been responsible for what I would consider at least some violations of constitutional rights. But perhaps I take civil liberties more seriously than most. We now have a constitutional scholar preparing to enter the White House. I look forward to seeing how he responds to many decisions implemented by the previous administration.

hmmm. The whole web page has been removed. I'll just have to wait and see how it gets reworded when it gets posted back up.

Well, John, you might be perfectly satisfied with the Constitution just the way Jefferson and Company wrote it, but if a few changes had not been made along the way, I would not have been allowed to vote and someone would own our president-elect. The Constitution is a living document, and life means growth and change.

Exactly, as times and technology and views change, so must the Constitution. We are no longer a country that needs militias to protect us from an invading force. The world is different place. That applies to things like weapons just as much as anything else.

First off, I think that the Constitution needs a tune-up. I have, in fact, started on an article to that effect for my local newspaper. Second, I think that the way that the question is phrased is in itself providing for its own answer. "Should the government be able to restrict any constitutional rights?" would lead someone to say, "Of course not". But the devil is in the details. Should I be able to have my own arms? Can't I have my own nuclear weapon under this clause? My own tank? My own rocket launcher? Why should the government regulate arms at all? Conversely, I have never gotten a good answer to the following question from a gun advocate. If you argue that you should be able to retain guns in case you want to attack the government, doesn't that mean that you are prepared to be a terrorist? And if so, shouldn't we respond to you in the same way we do with other organizations that advocate terrorism? Shouldn't that exact argument lead to regulating guns just like we regulate other tools of terrorism? This is not meant as an attack but as a serious question.

I usually don't engage in gun control discussions but for you, Wonk, I'll make an exception. Protection from tyranny and actively overthrowing a government are two very different things. The first steps of tyranny is to disarm the public, therefore no defense can be mounted. Official Notice that the following is only a fictional example, not saying this would ever happen: Ok...Now that I've gotten the disclaimers taken care of let's just say that President Obama and Pelosi's first order of business would be to make being a registered Republican illegal. Their new law states that all Republicans are terrorists and that they are no longer afforded the protection of the Constitution, their property will be seized and they will be summarily executed upon capture. It easily passes both houses of Congress and President Obama tasks the military and National Guard with carrying out this new law. If we've been disarmed, it's an easy task. We're sheep, herd us to the slaughter. The founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms to at least be able to put up a good fight. As long as the public is armed, there can be no tyrannical actions by the government. Once you take away the public's chance to fight, we're sheep. In a perfect world we would need no guns. The sun would be shining, we'd be picking flowers, standing on a hilltop singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing...." Dogs and cats would get along, liberals and conservatives would be hugging and holding hands, the national anthem would be changed to Kumbya. Unfortunately, this is the real world. If you make guns illegal, it will solve nothing. <heavy sarcasm on> Cause I could just see it now, the Crips, the Bloods, the Latin Kings, all the gangs and criminals lining up to hand in the Uzi's, Mac10's, AK's and all their other weapons. </heavy sarcasm> It will never happen. We would become a society of sheep. I'm not saying gun owner shouldn't be responsible. There are plenty of ways to keep guns out of the hands of babe's to prevent tragedies. My father was a police officer. I grew up with loaded weapons around the house all the time. From a very early age I was taught that touching them was forbidden. Dad kept them locked in his top dresser drawer. When I was old enough, I was taught to handle them correctly and how to shoot. Hunting and target shooting were some of the things that my father and I enjoyed doing together. If they make it where only the criminals and the government have guns, then we are at the mercy of the criminals and the government. That's a really bad place to be in.