Shouldnít those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?
Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?
Should we give up the 4th Amendment? The 5th? What about the 1st? Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process. Those too?
I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc. Self-defense is a right. If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible. However, that's simply not a practical solution.
I mean, im one of those people who is a pro gun control gum owner. I enjoy the privileges of and respect the bill of rights. But there is incredible amount of disparity into how broadly or narrowly each ammendment is interpreted, so the idea that we are helpless to enact gun laws without a constitutional ammendment is hogwash. To the point above, the first ammendment is currently getting a massive white/straight/christian supremicist twist such that it is currently getting twisted to basically mean it impinges on christian citizens rights to worship if christianity isnt the defacto recognized and funded religion. The second ammendment is then incredibly broadly interpreted, while the 4th is increasingly narrowly interpreted generally along racial and class lines. Same with the property forfeiture of the fifth, the ďimpartial juryĒ of the 6th (horrible history in the us of impartial juries) as well as the right to fair evidence of the 6th, and the speedy trial/due process/and absence of cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th. So basically, you have fake textualists or fake originalists espousing a broad interpretation of the 2nd ammendment and/or claiming our hands are tied by the second ammendment while simultaneously slicing and dicing the other ones in very narrow ways that all coincidentallt and very creatively favor the wealthy, police, white demographics with amazing surgical precision. I would start to buy the second ammendment BS if a critical mass of those loud 2nd ammendment people wereas staunchly advocating for broad interpretations of other ammendments. To say nothing of ammendments past 10, which, having gone through the constitutional process, are just as important and just as valid as the first 10.
I think there are a whole bunch of straw men here.
Who is advocating for an absolutist reading of the Second Amendment?
What First Amendment decisions are you talking about, and why would protecting religion be a narrow interpretation?
What disparities along racial lines are you seeing regarding interpretation of the 4th Amendment?
You were the one that brought up the constitutional right to owning a gun, except the amendment doesn't actually give you a right to own any type of gun or to own a gun for any reason.
Here is the actual text again.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It isn't free reign. Owning a gun is about participating in a WELL REGULATED Militia because that is what makes the country secure (or at least says the amendment). So you can't infringe on the citizens rights to keep and bear arms so they can participate in a well regulated militia. There is no right to own a gun to hunt. There is no right to own a gun when you go shopping. There is only the right to own a gun to participate in a well regulated militia.
And it is clear from reading the Federalist Papers and other important documents from that time period that the amendment really was about the militia. The founders feared a tyrannical government supported by a standing army and felt that allowing citizens to own guns would help curb a tyrannical government and stop the need for a standing army. Of course I'm sure the founders never imagined the technological improvements that would be made which makes guns essentially useless to that purpose or that a standing army (and other military branches) would become so commonplace in the world.