A fresh perspective. Who would ever think that an antiquated amendment would linger so long past its usefulness, and end up being the barrier to uniting people of all walks.
I find the Bill of Rights very current to include the Second Amendment. Our country was not founded by people who wanted a central authority (King) to care for and distribute the largess (in other words the illiberal Social-Welfare State). The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are based on the theory of individual Liberty and the limitation of government's authority.
I believe strongly that those who believe them antiquated should go ahead see if they can sell that amendment change through the correct process of amendment. Note not even the Democrat party has tried to remove the Second Amendment through a legitimate amendment process. Unfortunately what I see is those who do not support the original intent of the constitution often try to take the illiberal route of judicial override and reinterpretation. While there is a natural evolution built into our Constitution, it is not and should never be the abrogation of rights through judicial fiat.
I do find it fascinating that often people try to explain away rights they don't approve of as antiquated, while failing to see the danger that method poses to the rights they claim to possess firmly.
This discussion really belongs in a new thread dedicated to the conversation.
On the subject of the modification of chromed barrels where we started the thread I actually learned something new in terms of the actual ease of changing constriction which previously I erroneously believed was a real problem with chromed barrels.
