Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Second Amendment has always been one of the most problematic parts of the American Bill of Rights. To begin with, its historical antecedent in the English Bill of Rights is basically a codification of Protestants can bear arms so that virtuous men can shoot evil Papists and Jacobites as needed. It's also part of the American mythological hagiography of amateur militia as being able to fight against professional troops on an equal basis. The idea that its primary purpose was to guarantee a right to self defense is patently false. At most, such a purpose was but secondary to those of venerating the militia and guaranteeing the right of armed revolt. Jefferson was being literal, not metaphorical when he opined that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

That's a major reason the Second Amendment is so poorly phrased. It was an attempt to cover radical politics with conservative clothing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For example by simply in implementing a sentence that allows the federal government to regulate the arms market as long as it still allows people to defend themselves properly.

The strict separation of powers in the United States, which has its roots in the creation of the United States and the fear of a over-powerful government, produces political stalemates that are unique in the west. Every western democracy knows separation of powers, but not to such an extent. It is clear that the judiciary, which decides on the constitutionality of the laws, must be independent, but there is no need for congress to work against the president and vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson himself stated: "No society can make a perpetual constitution ... The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead .… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."

It is thus useless to follow the guidelines of some men 250 years ago who formed to US constitution in a way to prevent threats that were ultimately prevented - that is the transformation of the United States into some form of elective monarchy.

All interesting and valid points, and put very succinctly.  I wonder if you might tease out how separation of powers might be changed and what the consequences of that (positive and negative) might be?

Doesn't relate to the topic of the thread, but sure: I would primarily change the relation between the legislative and the executive branch, as this is the intersection that creates the most gridlock.

Gridlock is not inherently a problem. The only reason it can be one now is that we expect government to do more than was expected several centuries ago.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, it just doesn't mean what Republicans like to pretend it means.

Grant us your arcane knowledge of its true meaning, Wise One.

I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are  If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation.  

Now, you could argue for a living tree approach and argue that the meaning of the words in the Constitution should evolve with society and use such legal reasoning to argue that it has become a recognizable individual right under the Constitution were you so inclined.  However, this would fly in the face of one of the main originalist legal philosophies that have long been held up by the right as the model for jurisprudence.  

To admit so overtly that textualism is little more than a meaningless pretext for conservative judges to impose their personal beliefs and partisan interests on everyone else would be akin to screaming the quiet part at the top of one's lungs.  And even so, you still get nonsense like the majority holding like D.C. v. Heller that are really a grievous affront to textualism on a substantive level.  Incidentally, that case is a great way to see if someone claiming to be a textualist is a true believer or a pretextualist hack who really just wants to see right-wing legislating from the bench,

The idea that the second amendment only guaranteed state militias is laughable, as is the idea that it prohibits regulation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The argument for the 2nd amendment being arcane because the writers didn't envision modern weapons is a dangerous one; the 1st amendment certainly didn't envision the internet, which has enabled the rapid and widespread dissemination of false, fear-mongering and inflammatory speech, yet most people still advocate for free speech, myself included.

I've always wondered about the inherent loophole in the wording - the right to keep and bear arms is protected, but bullets and ammunition are not. Surely that's an avenue worth pursuing?

No.  Besides being common sense, it's fairly standard legal doctrine that if something is a right, so is access to the things needed to put that right into practice.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How many people who claim to need a gun for protection also refuse to wear a mask?
That is the question. As for me, between having a gun or wearing a mask, I prefer the latter.

I was told the reason we wear masks is to prevent the wearer from spreading disease more than it was for personal protection*.  Were you told something else?




*I'm NOT saying masks don't offer any protection for the wearer.  I shouldn't have to add things like that, but I know you people like to assume the worst of people you disagree with politically.

So are you saying that people carrying guns, they don't offer any protection to society?