Perry, Your statement is pure, absolutist rubbish -- on two fronts. What Justice Scalia is saying is that the USSC does not have the right "...to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." And he is correct -- because there is a PROCESS for changing the Constititution and "...making the Second Amendment extinct" -- and that should not (in theory, anyway) be determined by pronouncements from the bench That's called judicial activism, which, in this case, would involve MAKING law instead of interpreting it within the Context of the Constitution and the public will. However, the Costitution CAN be changed through a constitutional convention and ratification by the states. The Constitution is a creation of man, not God, and therefore, it can be changed by man -- unless you wish to consider as gods the men who wrote prohibitions into the Constitution against, say, slavery , but personally "owned" slaves, themselves. As to your second statement, that " If we give up one constitutional guarantee, they will fall like a deck of cards." This may or may not be the case; it depends upon the time and circumstance(s) but it is not an inevitable reponse. How do you know this, anyway? The fact is that you DON'T. You may BELIEVE that, but you can't KNOW that -- and believing is not knowing. Faith cannot be the sole determinant of public policy, for different people might have supreme faith in diametrically opposed policies. And not only that, but repeal of the Second Amendment might turn out to be in the best interest of "the general welfare". This "slippery slope" argument is an expression of fear and not of reason. To use a common expression, what you say "ain't necessarily so".