To add to this - IMO, The Bill of Rights is a list of "inalienable" rights. While I suppose The Constitution could be eventually amended to remove a right - it would not be the correct thing.
That is to say - it should be impossible to remove a right that is not granted, but is simply innate.
Who would ever agree to removing the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 6th. No one. So why would they agree to removing the 2nd?
I don't understand what people don't get about the fact that one has an absolute, irremovable, and inalienable right to self-defense.
Understood. My point was that the Constitution has been amended to remove rights. It may eventually be done again, and I agree that would likely be a mistake, but it has already been done.
That is to say - it should be impossible to remove a right that is not granted, but is simply innate.
Who would ever agree to removing the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 6th. No one. So why would they agree to removing the 2nd?
I don't understand what people don't get about the fact that one has an absolute, irremovable, and inalienable right to self-defense.