Circular f*cking arguments - "I consider all gun control laws....

[Pert_UK]

to be unconstitutional".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=46712&mesg_id=46973&page=

Now here's the problem (my fine friends).....

Is something immoral/wrong simply because it goes against the constitution?

Consider that the constitution was written by a set of fallible people in specific circumstances a while ago in history.

It has been interpreted and misinterpreted ever since.

Now, I'm not making any claims about how it SHOULD be read as I don't have enough knowledge on the subject. However, somebody who basically states that anything controlling access to guns is "unconstitutional" and who tacitly implies/concludes that it is therefore correct to disobey CURRENT laws without regard to the practical consequences, is in need of some serious help.

I mean FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY.........all the pro-RKBA/gun people who I have discussed things with on here acknowledge that guns shouldn't be just available to ANYONE, regardless of suitability. You're not allowed to drive if you're blind or 8 years old, so why does it make sense to assert that guns should not be subject to any control whatsover?

It seems to me that SOMEONE has been interpreting the constitution (and amendments) in their own special way and then decided that anyone who breaks laws to pursue that view is in the right....

It is a CIRCULAR and POINTLESS argument to state "Bearing arms is a right because it says so in the constitution".....the argument doesn't lie here, it lies in whether IF one interprets the constitution that way whether it makes sense, and what LAWS can be introduced to protect the right of self-defense whilst denying unsuitable people the access to lethal weapons.

On edit - sorry guys, I've just got back from a funeral and have been drinking so I'm not on top form......although I'm still making more sense than at least one person on here.