Why is it that only the 2nd amendment leads to the conclusion that there can be no restrictions on the right it expresses, the ownership of guns? The same doesn't seem to apply to the 1st amendment. For some reason we all (I think all) agree that freedom of the press doesn't extend to publishing child pornography. Or that freedom of assembly means that the state cannot require licenses for such assemblies, in the absence of which the assemblers can be stuck in jail. And we all know about restrictions on freedom of speech, from slander at one end to "fire in a crowded theater" at the other. Religion seems to be an exception to the rule on restrictions--except of course that it's not, since there are more cases than you can shake a stick at about what is or is not constitutional exercise of religion. And what about "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment. What is an "unreasonable search" or "seizure"?

But only the 2nd amendment, ambiguous in its initial phrase as it is, is said to be immune from moves to define what it does or does not protect.


Edited by yoyo52 (03/17/13 09:28 AM)
_________________________
MACTECH ubi dolor ibi digitus