Even if they're willing to pull the trigger, your average 7-Eleven employee is no Navy Seal and won't react well under gunpoint pressure and might end up shooting some innocent bystander or himself.
Just giving guns to everyone is bad idea on so many levels.
Most humans don't want to shoot other humans. The few who have murder fantasies do, but other than that nobody wants to take a life. The concept of just arming everyone isn't a positive nor even a remote solution.
That’s because most of the rest of the world doesnt respond to gun crime with arguments that the solution is to issue more guns.
The issue isn’t that the constitution cannot be changed. It’s that people are brainwashed into thinking it shouldn’t change.
Almost like they don't actually care about the constitution.
(I recognize some of the "issues" with Roe v Wade, tangential/orthogonal to that of access to medical services...)
"The right to purchase arms is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, but must exist despite that, because how else could you bear arms?"
Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't.
Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"?
"This document is correct and perfect in every way. Except the bit where the authors say it isn't."
Banning interracial marriage was deemed unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment doesn't have any text about same-sex marriage. That's why it's left up to the states. (10th amendment)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourteenth_amendmen...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
>Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"?
The constitution has methods to amend it, that's what a living document means, not that some political party gets to decide what it means on a whim.
What does it have to say about the Supreme Court legislating from the bench?
If one more person tells me 'the ship has sailed' or some other hopeless cliche of the moment - yes, the smart trend of the moment is despair! - about anything .... The radical gun people sure don't think that way, and their positions are obvious, absurd horsecrap. The only problem is you (and many like you) quitting.
Also the bill of rights werent fully incorporated upon the states until well past the signing of the Constitution. In this context it's kind of silly to compare backwards vs many regulations that simply didn't exist or had no incorporated protection.
The Bill of Rights point seems like a long stretch.
The other was the GCA passed in 1968.
After the passing of the NFA was the beginning of many modern era challenges such as US v.no legal counsel of dead guy (Miller). Unsurprisingly the undefended dead guy with no counsel lost setting a long precedent and the rest of NFA is history.