Splendid!!! We already have one:
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.
There ya go, guv'nor. All 20,000 of those infringements on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. Away with them. Problem solved.
I often wonder “why” people think what they do.
The reasons for keeping the 2nd amendment are as valid now as they were then. As some might, if rudely put it: because I can’t put a policeman in my pocket. Because when seconds count, police are but minutes away. Not to mention that police might not always be helpful in a situation if arriving timely because they don’t know everything. That’s how dogs and innocent victims get shot. They tend to get shot far less often by people who already know about those factors.
I mention police because that seems to be the only actual reason proffered. The problem is, police cannot be, and never have been, what airy fairy illiberal “liberal” government nannies have wanted them to be.
I do think that “well training” (well regulated in the charming olde englishe) helps lend credibility to the 2nd amendment’s premise, and those who do it, also do. There’s something to be said for chucking a revolver into a drawer so it’s there if needed and remembered years later, but mishaps and mistakes associated with things like this probably produce the largest countercase for the 2nd amendment. No, the authors knew everything about what they were writing and were assuming that those who wanted the amendment would also be “well trained.” Giving that up gives up the rationale for having asked for it.
I meant, proffered by the airy fairies etc. Sorry about the ambiguous words. I can go on a jag and forget to edit for total sense.
Got it on the fourth post, good work.
We’ve had a 50 state solution since Day ONE!