[tpaine]

Read my actual words:

Chief Justice Marshall argued just that point in 1803, quite logically, in Marbury v Madison.
-- In essence he made the point that our original Constitution/Bill of Rights were based on fundamental individual liberties, and that if acts were passed repugnant to those basic principles, they would be null & void, having violated the spirit of the social contract, the constitution itself.
Thus, an amendment nullifying the 2nd would void the entire basis of our republic.
50

You don't understand? -- Specify what & why, and make a counterpoint.

[Boot Hill]

tpaine asks:   "You don't understand? -- Specify what & why."

Do you mean to say by your words, that such an amendment would void the entire Constitution itself?

--Boot Hill