[DaveTesla]

Although the Supreme Court had never construed the second
amendment prior to the Dred Scott[69] decision in 1857,
judicial opinion stressed the need for an armed populace to
counter the threat of tyranny, whether its source was
foreign or domestic. Unites States Supreme Court Chief Justice Story stressed the
significance of the second amendment in these words:

The militia is the natural defense of a free country
against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections,
and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against
sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both
from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended,
and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and
unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample
upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to
keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful
in the first instance, enable the people to resist and
triumph over them.

By your logic the states could re-institute slavery.

[arrogantsob]

While the first paragraph of your post was exemplery it appears insanity erupted in your last sentence. My “logic” implies nothing of the sort particularly since it has been made impossible to have slavery by amendment.

Are you saying we will amend the Constitution again allowing the re-establishment of slavery? That is the only way it would again be legal.