Leave the personal insults out of Great Debates. If you need to get personal, take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Hmmmm, I must have, please explain that to me.
The principle is of mingled dependence; neither federal or state government can abridge the right to keep and bear arms because the armed citizenry is the entity that BOTH governments rely upon for security.
Presser makes it very clear that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states and their militia regulation power. If it did, the Court would have applied the Amendment’s scope and restriction on the federal power, to the point of barring the Court from having jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of a state militia law as applied to that state’s citizens. The Court would not have inspected the Amendment for its impact on a state’s power to require a permit for an armed march by private citizens if the Amendment protected that state power to do so.
Furthermore, any interpretation that the 2nd protects state militia powers from federal authority would have made the Court’s remarks about federal powers that prohibit a state to disarm its citizens, utterly nonsensical.
You appear blind to the process when you can so easily say, “let’s give the government the explicit power to regulate and control guns” . . .
Your ConCon might start with that purpose but you might end up with something very, very different once the states have their say.
In your haste to crush your opponent, you appear to be mixing up different arguments. On the very first page, John Mace noted that proposing such an amendment would not be politically viable. Falsely accusing him of being unaware of the amendment process or its political ramifications is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is absurd on the face of it that we, the people, cannot vest our government with the power to regulate firearms if we so choose. Who is going to stop us? Some judge telling us that no matter what we write in the Constitution that we’re wrong? Every right that we have is a social construct or contract we make, as a people, with the government. If that makes you feel you need to take up arms and overthrow said government, knock yourself out.
Indeed. It can be an anachronism even if, politically, it is here to stay. Sort of like the penny. 
There is no law that the people can not pass if they wish, the fact that the 2nd is an amendment to the original document proves that point.
Your assertion that to be of use would require an actual uprising is false, the risk of it works as a deterrent without a single drop of blood.
Things you don’t personally like are not anachronisms.
What would the advantage be to repealing the 2nd?
Return control of firearms to local government, letting the people locally decide what they want. All federal, state, county and city laws would still be in effect. I suspect that some places would loosen control, some would tighten control and some would ban them altogether.
Congress should.
You might wish to provide some examples, because it seems preposterous. It also makes one wonder why so many places without a Second Amendment equivalent have had long runs as civilian democracies without military uprisings.
And what advantage does that give?
Can you demonstrate that gun control laws reduce violent crime? or is the desire to have local groups passing laws on arbitrary and ineffective laws the end goal?
This also does not make it old and out of date, there is still a risk of a military junta in this world.
That’s not true. The Constitution prohibits amendments banning slavery prior to 1808 or altering the apportionment of senators between states.
People can decide what kind of environment, gun control wise, they wish to live in.
Lets see, here is a partial list of countries that have had Military Dictatorships in the past 100 years, most of which were “democracies” at the time.
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Bulgaria
England
France
Greece
Hungary
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Spain
Turkey
Or are you claiming that Americans have some special human trait that protects them from the military trying to gain control?
So no practical reason, just because the majority should rule?
If you wish to respond to your own words instead of the ones I post, I see no reason to continue responding to your inquiries.
Good day.
An amendment could change those, an amendment changes the original document.
Let’t take ten cases where a robbery victim is armed. They almost surely don’t know in advance that the robbers intends to kill them just for the hell of it. So they go for their guns in attempt to defend themselves anyway, because if they wait it will be too late.
Some of them are killed because they spook the robber into shooting, whether or not that was the original intent. A couple of them accidentally shoot little kids playing up the street. A couple of robbers, spooked by the unexpected gun threat, also shoot some kids along the street. Maybe one or two of the victims shoots the robber.
There are a lot more plausible scenarios when someone other than the bad guy gets hurt then there are when only the bad guy gets hurt.
The constitution is just another set of laws with a higher standard of voting to add to, dump, or change. So yes, people can pass any law they want.
Sorry England shouldn’t have been in there, that was the 17th century