::::Breathing in:::::
:::Breathing out:::::
Now singledad, this is one of my buttons.
Are you Alan Keyes?
Actually, it is relevant. The way the Constitution is interpreted is to understand the origninal intent. To understand any particular part of the Constitution, we have to know what isue they were addressing and why.
I can only aaume that you think there are two way to amend the Constitution. We can either add an Amendment, or, we can sort of ridicule parts of it and call it outdated.
The Constitution is a contract. Very specific terms were agreed to. Many of us still hold those terms in high regard. You can not just declare them “outdated” and change the contract. This is called Rule of Law.
Hmmm…
Do you think oppresive central governments exist today? Has humanity evolved to the point of non-aggression? Do we have nothing to fear from our government? What about 10 years from now?
Do you consider the 1st amendment as outdated as the 2nd? I’m sure you apply the 1st to radio, TV and the internet. The Bill of Rights was not meant to apply to technology, but principles.
Among other rights, it is meant to allow the publication of unpopular ideas. The printing press was only a tool of their time. They never meant for the rights they were protecting to become ignored just because the technology changed.
The right the 2nd amendment protects is the right to self-defense. Self-defense from criminals, and self-defense from our government. The 2nd makes sure that the people will be armed if the government ever encroaches on our freedom to the point where rebellion is justified.
I hold that the 2nd is put in the Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY to hold the federal government in check by the threat of popular rebellion.