View Single Post
  #51  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:00 AM
BrianDime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 27
I have this discussion, in various forms, on a fairly regular basis with one of my more conservative friends. At one point, I asked him "What would you do if a properly approved amendment to the constitution was voted in that made it clear that there was no individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment?" His was response was that it would then be time for armed revolution.

Clearly, he is firmly in the "Articulation of preexisting, natural rights" camp. I think, though, that there may be room for discussion about the idea that our Constitution is an attempt to codify preexisting rights, and so the particular language used is (or is not) an accurate translation of an idea into text. At that point, it kind of becomes a question of "Is the natural right that all individual should be allowed to bear arms" or not. This argument should, for the most part, ignore the wording of the Constitution, as the words clearly don't matter if you take the "natural rights" approach and any shortcoming in the language are just that, and do not represent an actual limitation on the natural right to bear arms.