> And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

Do you support women’s right to terminate their pregnancy? Assuming you do, what would you think of similarly worded pro-life argument?

I think you’ll find such emotionally charged arguments are never effective and will convince no one.

It’s also uninformed, as there’s plenty of objective evidence to suggest that guns save more lives than they take[1–2].

[1] recent study: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-...

[2] more via: https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I would recommend reading this article. It was written in 80s, when NRA was just gaining political steam, and long before Heller v. DC (after which, like it or not, there is definitely a constitutional right). And it's written by an unsympathetic liberal law scholar.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

> Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

Note that among US states, there is no correlation whatsoever between gun ownership and gun homicide.

If only guns respected state lines.

"You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm."

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. District of Columbia vs. Heller.

...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.

Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.

Guns were not banned for 200 years. D.C. vs. Heller in particular overturned parts of a law passed in 1975.

Getting really obvious that you haven't taken a moment to listen to the Heller decision.

I have not read the Heller decision in its entirety. I do know that there are Supreme Court rulings that Heller contradicts. I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded. I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time. I do know that it's not an obvious amendment. There is no such thing as we have lawyers arguing the meaning of the Constitution all the time. Nothing is very clear cut. Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.

> I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded... Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.

Can I ignore or rewrite the 14th amendment because I find it confusing?

> I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time.

Yeah, people started ignoring parts they weren't comfortable with and finding new parts in prenumbras.

Your argument boils down to, "I don't know, everyone. There are a lot of gray areas, so we better just agree to do what I want."

That is not my argument at all. I have an opinion on what the 2nd amendment ought to mean. I advocate that others share my position. I've acknowledged numerous times that others don't share my opinion and I've suggested that they keep vigilant to maintain their rights. That's the whole point of politics. This is a political issue and people advocate for/against positions all the time. Sometimes attitudes that once were accepted become repugnant.

We best not just agree to do what I want. That would be absolute power and that would be horrible. No one deserves that much power. No one should be so arrogant that they think they are always right or that their opinions are beyond reproach.

I welcome discourse and debate. It's necessary for a properly functioning society.