Why don't Democrats just say it out loud: Repeal the Second Amendment?

[Doimper]

Why repeal it? It just needs to be interpreted the way it was for 200 years, before the NRA and the Roberts Court got their grubby hands on it.

[Doimper]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

The idea that "MUH AR-15" is an inalienable right is entirely an invention of the radical orginalists on the Roberts Court. It turns out that you can completely reinterpret amendments hundreds of years after they were written, who'd have thunk it?

[Doimper]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

The idea that "MUH AR-15" is an inalienable right is entirely an invention of the radical orginalists on the Roberts Court. It turns out that you can entirely reinterpret amendments hundreds of years after they were written, who'd have thunk it?

Based on your logic, the right to a free press doesn't protect Internet blogs.

My point is that the Constitution is a living document, and amendments can be interpreted, reshaped, and assigned meaning that's more appropriate to the modern world. The irony is that orginalists, who supposedly favor the strictest interpretation of the Constitution, casually redefined an archaic amendment to suit their narrow political agenda.

[Doimper]

The idea that "MUH AR-15" is an inalienable right is entirely an invention of the radical orginalists on the Roberts Court. It turns out that you can completely reinterpret amendments hundreds of years after they were written, who'd have thunk it?

Fake news. See:

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

1. The fact that the most recent pre-Heller Second Amendment case you can find is from 1886 doesn't exactly prove that the amendment wasn't archaic by the time Heller came around, lol

2. Presser is a weird case to cite, given that it essentially legitimized a form of mass gun control and held that state governments weren't bound by the Bill of Rights (which is obviously archaic, since most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated by now)

[Doimper]

It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years

"We should keep the second amendment not because it has any benefit to society, but because getting rid of it is hard"

It's not even that hard, though. We just need to wait for the radical orginalists to keel over, replace them with better judges, and then the Second Amendment can be interpreted the way it was before 2008. That might cause Cletus from Alabama to lose his mind and fire a few shots at the nearest authority figure, but oh well.