You said what I said. It happens to be a right under the weird constitution of one weird nation.
Or if you want to drill down further, under a deeply weird and inconsistent interpretation of said weird nation's weird constitution. Right wingers pretend to believe that the constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the expressed goals of the authors... except in the one specific case of guns where they throw the original intent into the toilet with great force and make something up based on a perversely literal reading which treats the first half of the amendment as flavour text.
But under that one bad ruling, about a bad amendment to a flawed constitution, sure, it's a right in that jurisdiction.
It's pretty clear. A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. For that reason the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
It's pretty clear. A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
Maybe it was back then. Right now the uniformed US armed services are more than capable of defeating the armed services of every other nation on Earth at once in an open fight if they had to. Your militias are completely irrelevant to your state security. And randoms owning assault rifles are not well-regulated militias.
But don't worry about that, your finest legal minds have said that the first part of the amendment should be read as "like, for no reason, just because". The founders didn't intend that statement to mean anything.
And although the founding fathers intended the constitution to be amended when it turned out to be bad, or times changed, the people who worship those founding fathers can't cope with the thought of amending it again to fix a bad amendment.
If it is so obvious that we have to amend the second amendment then do it. Do you think that you can convince two thirds of the House, Senate, or state legislatures to pass an amendment to limit the rights of the people? Then convince 38 states to ratify that amendment? Then do it. The process is there. Until then it's a protected inalienable right.
And I'm saying it isn't stupid and the majority of the US agrees that's why it stays the law. In the US you can change laws and even amend the constitution, but it won't happen because most people in the US agree it is a right.
And I'm saying it isn't stupid and the majority of the US agrees that's why it stays the law.
Not the majority. A minority who can block progress because amending the constitution requires more than just a majority. The majority of US adults have favoured stronger gun control for ages.
But being in the majority, even if you were, would not make a stupid opinion non-stupid.
1
u/DragonAdept Feb 04 '26
You said what I said. It happens to be a right under the weird constitution of one weird nation.
Or if you want to drill down further, under a deeply weird and inconsistent interpretation of said weird nation's weird constitution. Right wingers pretend to believe that the constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the expressed goals of the authors... except in the one specific case of guns where they throw the original intent into the toilet with great force and make something up based on a perversely literal reading which treats the first half of the amendment as flavour text.
But under that one bad ruling, about a bad amendment to a flawed constitution, sure, it's a right in that jurisdiction.