Structuraly Unsound: The Constitution
a gibber for drsmax who sent me this photo:
If one has the right to bear arms in order to protect oneself as part of a citizens militia, one must concede that if that right cannot, or will not, be removed from the constitution, it must be considered as applicable now is it was when originally enumerated. In this case I am forced, with great reluctance, to concede that the arms available to a citizens militia must be of a nature that is reflective of the dangers facing said militia. With growing threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction around the world, possessed by countries hitherto thought incapable of constructing or purchasing them, and considering the hatred with which our nation is viewed by its enemies, our citizens must be allowed to defend themselves on an equal footing. I must therefore find that Mr Klugg has every right to the weapons in his possession, and in fact has been deprived of his constitutional right to do so. We must not forget that the right to bear arms is also a responsibility to defend ones country with them. That is the essence of the law. In this instance we must remember that for a constitution to be effective, it must be resistant to change on a structural level. Thus we are forced to interpret the structure of our laws based on the morality of the day, as has always been the case.
-Excerpt from a Supreme Court ruling By Justice Patton Cabbot-Harrison III 25th July 2007.
[edited - with thanks to the readers of drsmax for pointing out that once again I have become Captain Typo]
If one has the right to bear arms in order to protect oneself as part of a citizens militia, one must concede that if that right cannot, or will not, be removed from the constitution, it must be considered as applicable now is it was when originally enumerated. In this case I am forced, with great reluctance, to concede that the arms available to a citizens militia must be of a nature that is reflective of the dangers facing said militia. With growing threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction around the world, possessed by countries hitherto thought incapable of constructing or purchasing them, and considering the hatred with which our nation is viewed by its enemies, our citizens must be allowed to defend themselves on an equal footing. I must therefore find that Mr Klugg has every right to the weapons in his possession, and in fact has been deprived of his constitutional right to do so. We must not forget that the right to bear arms is also a responsibility to defend ones country with them. That is the essence of the law. In this instance we must remember that for a constitution to be effective, it must be resistant to change on a structural level. Thus we are forced to interpret the structure of our laws based on the morality of the day, as has always been the case.
-Excerpt from a Supreme Court ruling By Justice Patton Cabbot-Harrison III 25th July 2007.
[edited - with thanks to the readers of drsmax for pointing out that once again I have become Captain Typo]