So Bob Costas doesn't matter

[exploited]

The Second Amendment is irrelevant. You just said that.

You cannot, from that point on, make any sort of Second Amendment based argument. If the Second Amendment is irrelevant, and was never intended to mean what it said, it is clear that there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. It is a privilege that should be granted assuming reasonable limits, which the "well-regulated militia" reference establishes.

[lnrw]

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

[The Dharma Bum]

[OGPhilly]

[OGPhilly]

I've already stated that I do believe the real reason for the Second Amendment was so that the people would have the capacity to overthrow a government that became tyrannical, or more importantly, that the possibility was at least there so power-hungry leaders would think twice about their actions.

And again, I will state that this perfectly displays why original intent is not what we should center our modern reading around. In the 1700's, a large coalition of angry citizens with guns actually could overthrow the government, or at least pose a very credible threat to do so. Today in the United States, the most anyone can manage to do with a gun is assassinate a politician or go on some psycho killing spree. Either way, the government faces no threat of being toppled. Anyone trying to actually stage a proper armed rebellion would be crushed without a doubt. In fact, the government would quite possibly find them and take them out before they managed to even stage an attack.

Of course, the Second Amendment still exists and still has to be understood and interpreted as constitutional law unless it gets repealed, but my point is that our understanding of it should be based on recent legal precedent an new legal arguments, rather than always focusing on what the authors of the document originally intended by it.

[lnrw]

[exploited]

[OGPhilly]