A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-United States Constitution, 1791
The Idea of a somehow fluid constitution is one that permeates large expanses of the left wing, and nothing is more targeted under this erroneous theory than the Second Amendment. By fluid I mean the theory of a living Constitution, a Constitution that adapts and changes to meet the new circumstances in which it exists. This sounds all well and good, and in one sense the constitution is living, adapting through amendments like the 19th amendment to give women the right to vote, yet this idea is perverted by those who would like to mangle the Constitution in order to fit their wants.
Does this sound insane? Consider this, over 80% of Americans support the Constitution, while only 8% dislike it, if 80% of Americans support the Constitution, 80% of Americans should support people's right to using Hate Speech, because even if a speaker is offensive, their speech is constitutionally protected and that is not even up for debate. However, 44% of Americans argue that the Constitution doesn't protect Hate Speech. This gives three possibilities, one, people actually have no idea what the constitution says, two, around 24% of people know what the constitution says and disregard it anyways which would be a clear proclamation of dissent towards the first amendment, or three, somehow the Rasmussen Poll accidentally asked Americans what they think of the Canadian Constitution, because clearly a large percentage don't care about the American Constitution.
In relation to the second Amendment, there is an even larger level of support for the loose interpretation of the right to bear arms. By loose interpretation I mean tear the second Amendment out of the bill of Rights and throw into a fire. Leftist havens like Salon have turned to a popular refuge when it comes to Second Amendment bashing. Salon Argues that the Second Amendment calls for Americans to "participate in Militias rather than have a standing army", And that since we have a powerful standing army, the Second Amendment is "obsolete". This interpretation in which the first half of the Second Amendment is used as an argument for a standing militia and not an individual's right to bear arms not only does not stand up against scrutiny in terms of the actual wording, but also fails to hold any bearing to what the Founding Fathers clearly stated the Second Amendment means. The Second Amendment makes clear "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it does not state "the right of the well regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The only reason there can be a Militia is that citizens can own weapons. The Founding Fathers knew and agreed that the Government very much has the possibility of going tyrannical and that Citizens must have the right to defend themselves.
George Washington, a founding father, completely refuting Salon's argument, stated that "When Government takes away Citizens' right to bear arms, It becomes citizen's right to take away government's right to govern".
The Constitution is not fluid when it comes to already passed amendments, and the only point of arguing to reinterpret Amendments, or to change the wording of them is to make concessions to a large and growing government. The fact is that every Government ever, when left unchecked, will grow and usurp individuals rights in the name of temporary security or comfort, the federal Government is a hungry wolf and was originally only intended to scare off predators, aka Great Britain and other potential threats, thus giving states the security and right to govern themselves. As Benjamin Franklin said, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".
"The only thing that will ever come from continued concessions on the Second Amendment is a growing government and a weakening individual."
-RightLens News, 11/13/2017