BB--

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment?

Here it is in its entirety:

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Do you have any idea what the meaning of that is, or the purpose?

What's the first mention? Very good--Militia. Go to the head of the class.

So that's the goal of the right to bear arms. And how many gatherings of the Militia have you attended recently? How many do you think Cho attended?

If you don't believe the right to bear arms has to do with the militia, check Amendment 5. It's about crimes and whether you will be held to answer for a "capital or other infamous crime" "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia".

So obviously the "Militia" is another armed force. However, it stands to reason that if you are not in that armed force, you are not part of the militia. In that case the "right to bear arms" is not your right.

And don't bother with the garbage of all able-bodied men being in the militia. If so, what part have you played in the militia recently?

And it may do you some good to read some history.

If you do, it will become clear that 3 problems were to be addressed by the 2nd Amendment:

1) fear of an overpowerful government
2) fear of a standing army
3) fear of Indian attacks

I think we can agree that the danger of Indian attacks has gone down recently.

The other 2 were directed , as I said earlier, at recent experience (at the time of the Bill of Rights) with the British government. If you disagree, please specify exactly why.

Things have changed, you may have noticed. (Or perhaps you haven't noticed.)

Fear of a standing army? Do you still have that?

Perhaps fear of an overpowerful government? As I said earlier, if you have this fear, it's interesting, since you voted for the current regime. But you and like-minded individuals may not have much luck against the US military. Or perhaps you think differently

And spare us the pious mouthings about the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution.

Times change. Have you heard of the 3/5 compromise?    Do you know what happened to it? Perhaps you think it should still be in force--after all, it's in the Constitution.

How about the 18th Amendment? Is that still in force?

And in the Bill of Rights itself, try the 7th Amendment--"where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". Is that still in force exactly as written--"twenty dollars"?

The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, changes to meet new circumstances. When you join the militia, you can apply for your right to bear arms. An argument can easily be made that the "Militia" could be seen as the National Guard--emphatically NOT every male over 16.

And don't bother with "if this right is abrogated, all other rights are in danger". That's patently absurd.

Freedom of speech, religion, etc. are still important--I imagine you agree.

"A well regulated Militia" is no longer so pressing a need, for reasons I have cited. Furthermore, as noted, in general the National Guard fills the role.

Do you?