[Mind-numbed Robot]

Since the right to "keep and bear arms" was well understood from 1789-1939, 150 years, why is the emphasis place on the "numerous decades" from 1939-present, 43 years? Since it is historical fact that crime is greatly reduced where the right to carry is affirmed, why do liberals demand that that right be eliminated? Could it be because our founders said that if the government became oppressive the people had a right to overthrough it? Could it be for the same reason they emphasis "the state shall not establish a religion" and then ignore the rest of the sentence, "nor prevent the free exercise thereof"? Could it be that the Constitution restricts their plans to change our form of government? That is my bet.

[Hunble]

Could it be for the same reason they emphasis "the state shall not establish a religion" and then ignore the rest of the sentence, "nor prevent the free exercise thereof"? Could it be that the Constitution restricts their plans to change our form of government?

B I N G O

If they want to change the Constitution, then pass a new Amendment. The formal procedure is very well explained.

[borkrules]

As you've implied, the Second Amendment is the people's "ace in the hole", their last line of defense against despotism. It exists for the sole purpose of defending the republic against attempts to overthrow it, from either within or without.

It's not about duck hunting, or even primarily about home defense. Its about shooting usurpers.

Any other explanation for it's existence is tap dancing around an uncomfortable truth.

[Constitutional Patriot]

Could it be that the Constitution restricts their plans to change our form of government? That is my bet.

You nailed it.