The 2nd Amendment is arguably the most restricted, regulated and misinterpreted amendment of the Constitution. Liberals argue for abortion “rights” because of some court opinion decades ago that supposedly settled the issue. The passage of time officially codified abortion as a woman’s “right.”
But something like the Bill of Rights, which was “settled” centuries ago doesn’t apply anymore. It’s subject to restrictions, regulations, government monitoring and tracking, licenses, etc. Try doing that with abortion, and you’ll be met with vitriol.
John Donahue, a Stanford Law Professor, believes that the 2nd Amendment is all about restrictions, not acknowledgements of freedom. He made his remarks in a debate with Donald Kilmer. The Stanford Review reported:
Donohue was the first to respond. “I support the right to self-defense,” he said, “but that doesn’t mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.” He argued that the Second Amendment must be interpreted through a historical lens, noting that the firepower available when the Bill of Rights was written is not comparable to today’s firepower. “Restriction has to be at the core of this right,” he said…. “It’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check. They’re not really trained to do so. And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”
I’d argue that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with restricting citizens, and everything to do with restricting the government. “Congress shall make no law,““shall not be infringed,”“shall not be violated,” etc. These things are restrictions on the government. The Constitution was meant to be the government’s ball and chain.
As faulty as the founders were, they understood total depravity. They may have not called it that, but they understood that men (and women) in positions of power would be tempted to garner and achieve as much power as they possibly could.
Despite the checks and balances in government, those in power over the past couple hundred years, and particularly the past 100 years, have given into these temptations and have reinterpreted the Constitution to accommodate their lusts for more power.
Over time, power has slowly been consolidating in the federal government; and inside the federal government, power has been slowly concentrating in the executive branch, and particularly in the president himself.
The Constitution was meant to restrain the government from devolving into a totalitarian dictatorship. It doesn’t seem to be working, because the Constitution will only work in a moral society. And we have anything but a moral society.