I went back and read what you wrote and I think we are on the same page. So I apologize.

A ban on guns only ensures that law-abiding citizens will not be packing heat – on their person or in their homes. You must – at the very least – allow guns in the homes – to empower people to protects themselves.

Public purpose was redefined with Kelo, but it doesn’t make it right.

The Second Amendment clearly states the right to individual firearms ownership. If you want to change it, the Constitution provides the Amendment process…but if you go that far with it, I think you’ll find that the Founders intent with the SA in action.

Take for example, a case with Internet Rights. How would we use the writers’ original meaning or definition to judge the merits of the case? You simply can not. There is no way we could imagine what the writers of the constitution would want for us to do in that situation as the internet would be inconceivable to them.

What are you talking about, it calls for good regulation?

How about allowing the ACTUAL amendment process take place if the Constitution needs to be changed, instead of making things up as we go along?

Pappy, that’s ridiculous. The Constitution doesn’t only apply to citizens while they are in their houses. Also, it may be fine for you, but as a female, I wouldn’t feel very safe walking around D.C. unarmed. You get raped and murdered all you want but as for me, no thanks!

I think it was done in Kelo, but then, we’re getting way off topic.

I fail to see any provision in the Constitution that states that. You can’t change the meaning without altering the document.

Do we need to throw out the writers’ views on every case? No.

But we need to accept the fact that the SCOTUS is hearing issues that could not even be conceived of 230 years ago and thus there must be some level of flexibility in how the SCOTUS rules.

And I do have a response and a critique to the comments forthcoming.

Yes, I am saying that I believe we have now have a Consitution that changes meaning at the whim of society & who’s on the bench.

I concur on your second paragraph. You & I also agree that this is dangerous. But I can’t ignore it just because I disagree with it.

Are you saying are we have a “living Constitution”? If so that is a dangerous place to go.

You essentially hand over what the Constitution means to 5 of 9 lawyers sitting on the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer was interviewed by Chris Wallace the other day and asked about whether he substituted his own views. He stated that he didn’t at the begining of his answer and then went on to expain how he, in fact, does put his own opinion in.

Isn’t this the definition of a “Living Constitution”?

When we pick and chose what we want the Constitution to mean based on need or desire, then we really do not have a constitution, we are nothing more than a despotism which uses the document only when it aids in subduing the people. Ignoring it when it is an obstacle.

The ordinance cost the city nothing, citizens can opt out (origianl law amended in 1983) and most importantly criminals know the citizens of Kennesaw are most likely armed.

Not to cliche, but criminals are…well…you know…criminals.

This ban will not be followed by them. The ones who will follow it will be the law abiding citizens, who actually NEED the handguns to defend themselves, their families and their homes.

This idea, like most ideas from the DC government, is a bad one.

I’m not saying that there doesn’t need to be some minor (and I say that with caution) regulation gun ownership. I don’t believe violent criminals should be allowed to carry, nor do I believe someone should have heavy arms (ie. a tank or mortars).

But as I read the amendment, the only specific regulation applies to the militia (a well regulated militia).

Out of everything you’ll read from the Founders, there isn’t much, if anything, about regulation on individual firearms ownership.