The recent tragedy in Connecticut got me thinking, and it kept goiong back to gun control and the impact of the second amendement on that debate. My first impression was the second amendement does not justify the access to assauklt weapons for ordinary citizens, and if it does then we should make all efforts to get rid of the second amendment. Then it hit me that we often talk about the US Constitution as if it was unassailable and a perfect document. It is definitely not a perfect document, it did not treat black or women very well that is for sure. So why cant the second amendment be one of the imperfections of the current document. Why is the second amendment seen as sarcosanct? It is not, and should not be.
The USC Constitution is a dynamic document, it lays out broad principles that should be adapted to realities of the time. So far the treatment of the second amendment has been anything but dynamic - we allow people to buy assaulkt weapons as if the framers of the second amendment had an inkling that there would be weapons that could unleash 700 engine block piercing bullets per minute. Why is the second amendment used to justify private ownership of assault weapons. It is time to scrap the second amendment if it justifies the private ownership of assault weapons.
It is also time to revisit the US Constitution to adapt it to modern day realities.