By that do you mean that liberals already call for the 2nd Amendment to be eliminated or severely changed? Yes, I'm aware of that.
But if the Supreme Court declares that the 14th Amendment can be changed or eradicated because it no longer applies to modern day society, then that sets a clear precedent for the Supreme Court to debate the 2nd Amendment as well.
The Supreme Court has historically been hesitant to make sweeping changes to the Amendments. But if they actually start debating changing or eliminating the 14th Amendment, then it opens the flood gate on others.
And it would be the exact same argument. That the conditions that lead our Fore fathers to create the Amendments are no longer applicable to modern day life, and are no longer relevant.
I find it weird that so many people don't understand this.
Do you really not see how you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
Do you genuinely not understand that the Supreme Court doesn't get to just modify the Constitution, they are merely creating interpretations and applying said interpretations to the lower "categories" of law made by the Federal and State govts?
Precedent has always been a fickle beast, because these interpretations have never been permanent binding agreements for all future SCs to follow. To argue against turning precedent ever because it might be weaponized against us is fucking ludicrous to the highest order.
To argue otherwise is to say Blacks are subhuman non-citizens (Scott V Sandford) that we are at permanent liberty to round up forever (Korematsu V US) whilest the government can demand you buy slave grown cotton or be ruined by fines for "affecting interstate commerce" (Wickard V Filburn).
Because remember, by your own logic of "never change precedent or you might get gun grabbed in the future", if you don't agree with all that, "shall not be infringed" becomes "unless you are a domestic abuser" (Rahimi V US) or if "it's not used by the military" (US V Miller), or "it's not a common use item" (Columbia V Heller). Oh wait, IT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENS
Your point is moot because they already do that.
Do you not remember the harping on about "well regulated militia"?
By that do you mean that liberals already call for the 2nd Amendment to be eliminated or severely changed? Yes, I'm aware of that.
But if the Supreme Court declares that the 14th Amendment can be changed or eradicated because it no longer applies to modern day society, then that sets a clear precedent for the Supreme Court to debate the 2nd Amendment as well.
The Supreme Court has historically been hesitant to make sweeping changes to the Amendments. But if they actually start debating changing or eliminating the 14th Amendment, then it opens the flood gate on others.
And it would be the exact same argument. That the conditions that lead our Fore fathers to create the Amendments are no longer applicable to modern day life, and are no longer relevant.
I find it weird that so many people don't understand this.
Do you really not see how you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
Do you genuinely not understand that the Supreme Court doesn't get to just modify the Constitution, they are merely creating interpretations and applying said interpretations to the lower "categories" of law made by the Federal and State govts?
Precedent has always been a fickle beast, because these interpretations have never been permanent binding agreements for all future SCs to follow. To argue against turning precedent ever because it might be weaponized against us is fucking ludicrous to the highest order.
To argue otherwise is to say Blacks are subhuman non-citizens (Scott V Sandford) that we are at permanent liberty to round up forever (Korematsu V US) whilest the government can demand you buy slave grown cotton or be ruined by fines for "affecting interstate commerce" (Wickard V Filburn).
Because remember, by your own logic of "never change precedent or you might get gun grabbed in the future", if you don't agree with all that, "shall not be infringed" becomes "unless you are a domestic abuser" (Rahimi V US) or if "it's not used by the military" (US V Miller), or "it's not a common use item" (Columbia V Heller). Oh wait, IT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENS