And yet the reason we have the interpretation of the second amendment we have today comes down to a small panel of people ruling at a particular moment in time.

Do you think you could pass an amendment expanding the second amendment had the court ruled more narrowly on it? I don't.

It's a thin line of interpretation currently, so we shouldn't pretend that there's overwhelming support for the status quo either. The reason these court challenges happen in the first place has been because large groups of Americans have chosen to try to restrict guns.

So let's keep having the conversation until we decide to fix the constitution.

There are _plenty_ of people that would modify the 2nd to make it more expansive, not less. I'd count myself as one of them.

Well I am talking about all the bill of rights, not just the 2nd amendment but ya the SC has upheld the 2nd and is incorporated under the 14th. Sometimes I feel like we are getting gaslighted by people wanting to curb the 1st and 2nd amendments by saying they don't mean what they plainly say they mean.

> so we shouldn't pretend that there's overwhelming support for the status quo either.

I never said there was overwhelming support, I just said that there was a process in place to change if we want to. I don't like underhandedness, if enough people want to "fix" or eliminate the 2A, then someone one ought to propose a new amendment plainly stating as such and see how well that goes.

> Do you think you could pass an amendment expanding the second amendment had the court ruled more narrowly on it?

Depends on how narrowly. Overall I would consider an amendment strengthening the 2A more likely than removing the 2A.

There are relatively few states with strict gun laws and more constitutional carry states every year.

There is one other point I wanted to bring up. The 2A was designed to protect the people/states from the Federal Govt. so it was sort a "check" on Govt. power. So I do find wrong to think that the Judicial Branch of the Federal Govt. can have the power to remove this check unilaterally. This is a bit like if one branch decided another branch of government could be dissolved. Or even if one branch decided to not follow the rules (like a siting Pres. deciding an election is invalid...). Anyway, just saying that I think the only legitimate way to alter/remove the 2A would be for amendment driven by 2/3 states method or _maybe_ through congress since they are supposed to represent the people.

just how could the court have ruled more narrowly than 5-4? Maybe Thomas only counts as 3/5 of a vote cuz hes black?

Interpreted the second amendment more narrowly. Think for a second.

Yeah, I did. A better ruling would have been on P&I grounds, as Gura had asked the court and Thomas concurred.

THAT would have nuked the drug war from orbit, along with every other instance of modern federal over reach.

As far as I’m concerned the ruling was stupidly ruled, and very carefully crafted to not upset any apple carts.

ETA: reread your statement above, it was very easy for me to misconstrue “narrow” as in the vote tally.

The current, absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment came about in 1969, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling. Before that, Congress had considerably more leeway in restricting speech, and freely did so starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

We're living in an era where foreign states are running disinformation campaigns that swing elections. I think it's time we start thinking about putting the Brandenburg v. Ohio genie back in the bottle.

So we should destroy democracy to save it then? Democracy without freedom of expression can only be described as manipulated at best.

The Alien and Sedition Acts outright caused an election of somebody in jail whose defense can be paraphrased as "yeah I wrote it but this law is clearly unconstitutional bullshit". It wasn't fit for its stated purpose.