Can you imagine the outcry if the government passed a law saying that you lose your right to practice your religion if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, on the grounds that some religions teach that women should submit to men? Or for that matter, your freedom of speech, right to vote etc.
Sorry, but there is either a right, or not.
“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.”
I can’t see anywhere in those few words where it says “except if they committed a felony” or “if some government bueaucrat thinks they should “register” to get a permit to be “allowed” to carry arms concealed.
It seems that the wording is, and was meant to be, VERY explicit. “Shall NOT be infringed” is quite a direct statement and order and prescriptive limitation. If there were to be exceptions made in the slightest, the founders would have added, “except as provided by law” or some such. They didn’t. They kept it extremely short, direct and quite understandable by anyone with more than two functional brain cells - that leaves out most all liberals.
Look at ALL the 10 amendments in the BOR. Many have wiggle room in their wording. The second is about the ONLY one that doesn’t. It says exactly what they meant it to say.
Part of the problem is that in some States if the police are called by either party, or even next door neighbors, they are required to arrest one of the parties. There is no police discretion for times when it was just a simple argument and everything would be fine an hour later after both parties have cooled off. The police can’t say “go spend a night at a hotel and come back tomorrow and apologize.”
Then the prosecutors charge the highest possible charge. The idea is to start big then they’ll still have a charge to work with for plea bargaining. The prosecutors want a high conviction rate and don’t want to lose a case in front of a jury that says “why was this guy even arrested?”