I think I see your problem right there.
What you are saying is nonsense.
Those who supported the American Revolution consisted of about a third of the people in the colonies at the time. Another third was against the Revolution and the final third remained as neutral as possible under the circumstances.
And yet our Founders felt fully justified in overthrowing the existing government and instituting a new one.
You are perhaps among those who believe that if a super-majority supported "repeal" of the Second Amendment then there would no longer be a right to keep and bear arms.
In fact, there will always be a right to keep and bear arms. Repealing the Second Amendment would simply eliminate the explicit prohibition against infringement of the right by government. The same holds true of all our other unalienable rights.
Slavery was not eliminated by the Thirteenth Amendment alone. It required the loss of half a million lives to end the debate and to restore liberty to millions held in servitude.
In summary, there is much that we do to restrict the people from being able to run their government based on presumptions that they will be tyrants. Bearing arms is one such mechanism for restricting tyranny by majority.
I think you have it exactly right about SampleMan, WT. He's one of the "government grants you your Rights - not their Creator" people.
SampleMan - you should look over the Declaration of Independence to refresh your memory on where our Natural Rights come from.
If you actually post anything concerning what I’ve said, I’ll answer.
Making shit up and subscribing to me isn’t going to illicit much from me but disdain.
I believe the old feller is trying to gum us to death. ‘Ware the dentures!
There are very few restrictions in the Constitution concerning crime and punishment. If the people cannot decide via their legislators what should be illegal and how it should be punished, within the confines of those aforementioned Constitutional restrictions, then who exactly should be empowered to do so? Laws don't write themselves.
The absurdity of the argument you are making is that we can, via due process, Constitutionally deprive a man of his livelihood, all of his belongings, his freedom to come and go, the company of his family, even his life, but somehow his right to be armed is the sole thing that he cannot be deprived of. That is as illogical as it gets.
The loss of freedom and self-autonomy is what punishment is. There are many arguments to be made for changing current laws and associated punishments, but that is an entirely different matter than stating that the people cannot be allowed to deprive felons of freedom.