For the Second Amendment absolutists

[ProudModerate2]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

[ProudModerate2]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

I dont see anything in the 2nd amendment permitting that either.

Where do you see me use the word "permit" (permitting) anywhere in my response ?

[ProudModerate2]

So because a right was misused, the purpose behind that right must not exist. Brilliant logic.

Much in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments claim to be for the purpose of protecting the innocent who have been wrongfully accused. Guess next time someone guilty gets off on a technicality that means due process is all a lie. Derp derp derp.

There is nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th amendment that would allow someone nutty to simply walk into a public place and massacre 100 innocent people.

I dont see anything in the 2nd amendment permitting that either.

Where do you see me use the word "permit" (permitting) anywhere in my response ?

Synonyms exist? What is the difference between "permit" and "allow" as used in your two posts?

permit = to consent to expressly or formally
allow = to fail to restrain or prevent

So "permit," IMO, is more of a formal "OK-ing" by some type of governmental ordinance, law or amendment.

[ProudModerate2]

Is OP really suggesting that this is the 1st time a terrorist ever claimed their illegal violence was to fight government tyranny?

No.  Are you denying that many people argue in favor of the Second Amendment because gun ownership will stop government tyranny?

No. I just dont understand the argument that a random person abusing a right somehow renders the broad principle behind that right moot for everyone else.

The Constitution is seen as a living thing and something the founders knew can and would need "adjustments" as time and technologies changed the way we live (in the US and on our planet).

The original Constitution allowed for slavery and even allowed slaves to partially count for census purposes. We eventually abolished all aspects of slavery from any and all laws, federal and state.
But yet many southerners just couldn't understand why the "broad principle behind their right" (as you say) to own slaves was being challenged, because some strange northerners were claiming it was wrong and creating harms to society (and to the slaves !).

They really, Really, REALLY believed that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. They simply weren't "trolling" northerners to get a big kick out of seeing them upset about it.
Now how stupid do they (the policy back then) look now ?
Really dumb, right ? "How on Earth can someone defend the act of slavery?" ... we ask today.

100 years from now, there will be significant gun law changes in our nation. I foresee it.
And people in the future will say, "what the hell were you guys thinking back then ?" "Why did you allow for so many innocent people to die, time after time after time ? Day after day, month after month, year after year ..... just endless and constant inexcusable death ?"
Our future generations will think we (in our present time) are just nuts.