2nd Amendment- Archaic or Based In Timeless Rights?

The language of the Constitution and the Amendments should not be changed. They have stood over 200 years and are still solid today. Any who seek to change the wording are trying to introduce ways to circumvent the Constitution. I especially would never trust a Liberal to change the way the Constitution reads, since they are the ones that are most adamant about destroying it. You can see the Liberals in this thread trying to give meaning to the Constitution that isn't really there.

 

Correct.

On the First? The Founders never meant for Religion to be law OR law to bend religion to its will either. Never meant for the Government to "register people criticizing them in print" (one idiot State Senator in FL is trying just that). Most of all? Never meant for Government to be able to control protests against itself by requiring "Permits" to do so. Requiring a "permit" to protest a death or action? Is tantamount to saying that the Founders should have asked GB's Governors to "Permit them to protest, and said 'Oh well!' if denied.".

On the Second? Shall not be infringed is clear. The rest is a little murky. I actually WOULD like a once and for all definition of "Militia". Now Neo and I will agree on something here. That means that it is likely solid truth. If that were to happen? It wont be what the Liberals want. There are more Red States (more people in Blue, but numerically more Reds). It takes overall states, not "votes based on Population". So if we define it? It likely defines closer to "Each person is......" than "government organized........". Regulated would run more right than left too. But Neo. Lets be honest. There was a little too much room left there to interpret when written.

Third was never an issue.

Fourth? Direct words "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.". Nowhere in there does it say "unless it inconveniences the police, harms their case, would possibly make them lose evidence, lose a suspect........". I personally saw too many judges and DAs who are a little too "GET EM AT ALL COSTS!" get overturned on appeal for MATERIAL errors like........ "cops went in, arrested, took evidence at 4am, warrant was issued at 7, CLOSE ENOUGH........... they might have lost evidence!". The founders were very wary of giving POLICE any lea way. This is from someone who was on the side of good for a while. But I plead out weak cases that I knew would lose/get appealed back the moment a Jury was out of the picture.