2nd Amendment- Archaic or Based In Timeless Rights?

Just an outsider's viewpoint.

Updated. You should not have the right to possess your own personal thermonuclear warhead.

 

It's more of an addendum to the Constitution called "The Bill of Rights". Amendments are for adding things to the Constitution, that wasn't applicable at the time or forgotten. New situations happen and adding an Amendment can correct the situation or oversight. If the 2nd Amendment needs to be changed or removed, then the only way to do it is by creating another amendment, and that requires the consent of the people. The Federal Government cannot decide to change it on their own. That will start a revolt. The system is set up to insure the government is subordinate to the people, not the other way around.

 

In DUIs? Many locals and states absolutely DO seize vehicles for DUI. The fact you "know people who were sent to jail and only 2 people lost their vehicles" is in no way what happens nationally.

 

I'm wondering about the "not all guns are designed to kill" comment. I mean, what the hell else are they designed to do?

 

Maybe they're an erectile aid.

 

But, as I have said before. The intent was for John, George and Thomas to have what the government did. Back then a person could own a ship, a cannon, all the guns. Now? Are we OK with everyone owning tactical nukes? Armed tanks and fighters? Because that was the intent. And if we are OK with deviating from that intent? We have to accept that we have changed it already and cant cry "no regulations!". Because there are already. Another that is not in the 2nd is "Felons and Guns". The founders, if they intended to disarm people who went to prison? Would have written that. It came later.

There is also the problem of this idea some have that the Founders meant the Bill of Rights to never be touched. That is false. The only limitations were. 1. No Amendments on Slavery could be passed until 1808. 20 years after the signing. 2. No Amendment can ever change the representation calculation of the Senate. That is it. There is no rule that 1-10 can not be changed by an Amendment because they are "special amendments that are RIGHTS". Funny thing is this. If 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of the States? Tomorrow? Amended the following? It is Amended. "There is no longer a freedom of religion as religion is banned.". Does not matter that it is "in the Bill of Rights". Can be amended. Therefore so can any absolute right to own guns. The Right can be clarified by Amendment or, yes, removed. And yes I realize the latter would be civil war. But...... if 3/4 of the state governments agreed? You might have a bigger problem as the "smaller level government" is on the side of what you are fighting. The bill dof rights is not absolute. Never was. Never was meant to be. In fact? I think if the Founders are anywhere they can see and are conscious to react? They are mad at the fact we changed so little and act like that document is "a gospel written in almost stone". Jefferson for sure felt it needed to be changed regularly. Originalists just get annoying at times. "Well the FOUNDERS WROTE. If they didnt WRITE........" then when it comes to Amending 1-10 "Well they OBVIOUSLY...... even if they didnt write it............".

 

You realize that in the process to change and ratify a Constitutional Amendment the "people" get ZERO votes on it right? If the House was to pass an Amendment today, the Seante tomorrow and 3/4 of the states before next November? The "People" would get no say. As the Right loves to point out. We do NOT live in a Direct Democracy (to those Representative Republic IS a form of Democracy). People dont get a "say" in every law. They get a "say" on the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in November on certain years. Or if they have recalls. And over 50% sit home, then bitch when laws are passed based on the people elected by those who BOTHERED. If an Amendment changing the 2nd managed to get through? It would be, quite honestly, because the Right were too busy watching/listening to their side's talking heads all day to remember to vote (something like 40 people I know in the last election on both sides).

On a slight off topic but on topic. Vote. Don't care if it is for who I like (honestly, I am a white CIS male, I dont get seriously hurt by either) or not. But FFS. If you dont vote? We don't want to hear you complain about what the reps elected by those who did do. And side note to both parties. STOP AIMING at the PRIMARY win and aim at the general. Rs. You lost hard in PA because you put a con artist (Oz) and an out there weirdo in Mastriano up instead of people who could win. Anyone but Oz could have beaten Fetterman guys. I dont know how easy beating Shapiro would have been but it would have been CLOSER. But instead? Like AZ and other places? You backed whoever Donnie told you to and they lost. Hell. Oz lost to a guy who campaigned in sweats, had a stroke and DIDNT CAMPAIGN for almost 4 months, then came back slurring still in sweats, by 5 points. McCormack would have WON. 50/50. Anyone but Walker likely beat Warnock. 51/49. But DJT told you "THIS IS MY GUY". Dont get me started on Lake who is really about to get to sanctioned and may have violated a State Law in one of her tweets (she tweeted images of ballots with signatures, a no no in AZ).