>that is is a foundation of US law wasn't what i was questioning, but rather
>whether an argument over whether or not gun control is desirable is
>answered by direct reference to the consitution
We may be talking at crossed purposes, then, because I
think that's the question I thought I was answering.
:-) Let's see if I can clarify:
If you're asking: 'can the desirability of gun control be answered by pointing to the Constitution?' then I would say 'yes. The Constitution defines gun control a priori as not merely undesirable but unacceptable. This judgement is embodied in the Second Amendment, part of the Bill Of [Personal] Rights.'
Did I get it right?
>> In the
>>US, grossly unfair laws generally get struck down by
>>the Supreme Court as violating one of the
>>Constitutional guarantees.
>
>really?
>it never struck me as even nearly that utopic
I've to admit that the current SC membership is hardly a model of Constitutional support. :-( But they still haven't totally eviscerated the Bill Of Rights, Goddess be thanked. We still have Miranda and the Fifth Amendment, most of the First Amendment is still being supported routinely, and so on. The Fourth is the one that's in the most trouble, and it's to the eternal discredit of this Court that it's so.
The problem with the US --any Capitalist country, really-- is that fascism is always just around the corner. Too damn' many people would fall in line if told to get out the ropes and torches, or a sack filled with half-bricks. And cut holes in a bedsheet to wear meanwhile. ummmm...lynchings!...Kristallnacht! Love it or Leave it! [tm] So the fact that the US hasn't totally gone down the plughole already is always an amazement to me and, I have to think, a real tribute to the durability of the Constitution.