Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which “natural rights” you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren’t going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?
You think it’s a good idea for a nation to have its constitution set in stone so the way of life hundreds of years ago sets the way forever? What if the first ten included that women can’t own property or vote? Would that be ok because they’re bill of rights? Would that also be a bad precedent? Is it so hard to accept that maybe they couldn’t envision the issues that could eventually come with their decisions back in the 1780s? Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?
Except you are going with a hypothetical but I’ll take the bait, seeing as it also goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence, although they did betray that spirit because they ignored the plight of the slaves, I think the removal of the clause of that women can’t own property or vote would be just but again the 2nd amendment has a huge part in our founding myth so its basically going to be impossible to remove. Also do you not think people in the Rural areas are safe from the wilderness? How the fuck are they going to ward off coyotes, foxes, razorbacks, bears, etc. You were suggesting a blanket ban of all firearms.
" Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?"
Also seeing as they literally just won a revolutionary war and failed to make an initial government to form a new one but the nation at that time was based on state militias. I think they would have still included that.
Let’s not pretend that the shootings happening now have anything to do with a militia.
I live in a rural area, close to 30 years outside the city, both in the middle of the woods and in the middle of a field, never had to own a firearm. Heck, my uncle used to live in a northern village and didn’t own one, there’s trained services to take care of wildlife.
Were you a farmer or a rancher? Where your livelyhood is connected to the net worth of animals/food in your possession, you know something that a wild animal may want to take/kill? If the answer is no, then sure a gun isn’t a requirement but its still a handy thing to have.
Amendments are… Well… Amendments, they can be amended. It’s not happening in the current political climate, doesn’t mean it would be impossible.
Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which “natural rights” you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren’t going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?
You think it’s a good idea for a nation to have its constitution set in stone so the way of life hundreds of years ago sets the way forever? What if the first ten included that women can’t own property or vote? Would that be ok because they’re bill of rights? Would that also be a bad precedent? Is it so hard to accept that maybe they couldn’t envision the issues that could eventually come with their decisions back in the 1780s? Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?
Except you are going with a hypothetical but I’ll take the bait, seeing as it also goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence, although they did betray that spirit because they ignored the plight of the slaves, I think the removal of the clause of that women can’t own property or vote would be just but again the 2nd amendment has a huge part in our founding myth so its basically going to be impossible to remove. Also do you not think people in the Rural areas are safe from the wilderness? How the fuck are they going to ward off coyotes, foxes, razorbacks, bears, etc. You were suggesting a blanket ban of all firearms.
" Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?"
Also seeing as they literally just won a revolutionary war and failed to make an initial government to form a new one but the nation at that time was based on state militias. I think they would have still included that.
Let’s not pretend that the shootings happening now have anything to do with a militia.
I live in a rural area, close to 30 years outside the city, both in the middle of the woods and in the middle of a field, never had to own a firearm. Heck, my uncle used to live in a northern village and didn’t own one, there’s trained services to take care of wildlife.
Were you a farmer or a rancher? Where your livelyhood is connected to the net worth of animals/food in your possession, you know something that a wild animal may want to take/kill? If the answer is no, then sure a gun isn’t a requirement but its still a handy thing to have.