max129 wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:18 pm
To me is it really simple.
There are ten amendments in the Bill or Rights. Of the one, only the tenth could be considered ambiguous as to whether it is primarily an individual right vs a protection for States. All of the others clearly refer to an individual right.
So clearly, the founders considered the 1st amendment as the single most important.
Am I to assume that they just randomly chose gun ownership as the 2nd? That its order in the sequence has no meaning?
There is a clear mechanism to modify and extend the constitution - the amendment process. The various legislators have been free to revoke the 2A for more than 200 years.
S1: Items in the BoR are individual rights
S2: The founders chose to list the RTKABA as the 2nd most important in the series
S3: There is a mechanism to change the 2A
G: Feel free to get 2/3 of the States to rewrite or revoke the Second Amendment
Got to point out your mistake here, though it is a very common one. The 1st and 2nd amendments were
not the 1st and 2nd amendments proposed in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original first two amendments failed and were not ratified at the time. The original 1st was about setting the number of members of the House of Representatives, and the original 2nd was about limits on Congressional pay raises. Curiously, this one never expired and was finally ratified as the 27th Amendment in 1992.
https://www.thoughtco.com/original-bill ... ts-3322334
So the 1st and 2nd amendments that we know today were actually the 3rd and 4th that were presented to Congress for ratification. The order of the amendments should not be read as indicating that some amendments were considered more important than others. As far as I can tell, the 2nd really did get it's position randomly.