Fair enough... you mentioned that it's impossible to amend the 2nd amendment. Why is that? Are you saying that simply because there isn't enough support for it in the current political climate or is there another reason?
I wrote a post to you explaining some of the reasons why I believe it is impossible to alter (or remove) the 2nd Amendment, you could reply to that post and we could discuss those reasons.
I believe you also mentioned that you didn't feel like the 2nd amendment actually gave us any rights but was just the govt's acknowledgement of that right that already existed? Can you elaborate on that?
The federal Constitution is founded on certain fixed principles. Primary among them is
all governmental power originates from the people, who granted to government, through the Constitution, strictly limited powers for government to perform express delegated duties.
The powers that were not conferred to government are retained by the people, with some conferred by the people to the state governments through state constitutions. What powers remain in the people's possession are at that point referred to as rights.
Our rights were our rights before the Constitution was written and before the Bill of Rights was attached. The 2nd Amendment and other provisions in the Bill of Rights grant nothing. There are many SCOTUS opinions that solidify this principle; the ideal has remained constant since the beginning of our government; here's a small sampling:
"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
__________________
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
__________________
"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
__________________
"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . . DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)
And now to bring it back to the 2nd Amendment . . . Those enumerated rights stand as examples of an infinite number of liberties where the government --
established by the Constitution -- can not step. If the government does trespass,
it is no longer, "the government established by the Constitution", it is something else, something foreign, and is from then on,
illegitimate.
Such a government, that ignores the limits of the Constitution, violates the principles of its establishment and has lost its legitimacy to govern, can no longer claim the protections of the Constitution (prosecuting treason and sedition, enjoying preemption and supremacy).
That government is then subject to the citizen's
original right to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers originally granted . . . With violence if necessary, using the means forever guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and
bear arms.
Since the 2nd Amendment recognizes and secures the right to say
NO! to government, that government can not be allowed to exercise powers
it was never granted to infringe on the right that was, and is, intended to be the people's ultimate check on government's power.
.