Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Ruining a criminal's night (personal defense)
Message-ID: <443@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 14:31:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.443
Posted: Tue Apr 30 14:31:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 03:51:26 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 25

From Michael Sykora, the distinguished expert in constitutional law:
>That the Supreme Court ruled [gun control] constitutional is not
>evidence that it is in fact constitutional.  

How come we never seem to get any arguments, but only assertions,
from those who believe that gun control is unconstitutional?  If you
believe that gun control violates the Second Amendment, kindly
provide us with your reasoning.  Make sure you provide rebuttals to
the arguments advanced by the USSC, other courts, and the numerous
experts in constitutional law who dispute your interpretation of the
Second Amendment.  

>Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that a state-sponsored public
>religious display (in, I believe Rhode Island) was not
>unconstitutional, yet any idiot can see that it violates the
>establishment clause.

Ah, yes, here is a powerful argument that had escaped me:  "Any idiot
can see it."  This principle that any idiot can understand
constitutional law will greatly simplify the interpretation and
application of the Constitution in the future.  (It will also
simplify other subjects, such as physics; e.g., any idiot can see
that quantum electrodynamics violates common sense.)

Richard Carnes