LogFAQs > #922178585

What blows my mind about the gun debate is that people can look at all of the problems our current society has with guns and seriously try and argue that it's okay based on what the founding fathers said almost 250 years ago, before any of the technology causing our current problems even existed. Especially when the Constitution was explicitly designed to be a malleable document specifically for the reason that times change and it's impossible for the creators to have known about and accounted for everything. Can anyone explain that in a way that makes it sound rational?

I suppose you can claim that "enacting gun control laws" and "repealing/changing the 2nd amendment" are 2 different debates and that the first can't happen until the 2nd happens. That has some degree of legitimacy I guess, but it's a level of nuance that doesn't seem like it reflects how actual discussions on the issue take place?
---

Oh woops. Putting Advokaiser in my sig like this until I think of something more clever