It is absolutely restrictable, what makes you think owning a gun is not?
Because a "right".. any and all "rights".... is/are, by it's very nature, unrestrictable.... anything that is restrictable isn't a right but is a "privilege". And owning a gun is a "right" ... not a "privilege".
Everything in this world is restrictable, even living and breathing considering that a jury of your peers can have the right to breath taken away from you. The reality is it needs to be restrictable, there has to be some restriction in place with it, the fight I think we have before us is keeping that restriction reasonable from those who want to over restrict it.
Those who understand that a "right" is something that a person owns and no one else can take it away know that a restriction, no matter what argument is used to justify it... or how logical that argument seems.... or how much sense that argument seems to make, is still nothing more than someone's attempt to control someone else.
And those who think that rights NEED to be restrictable are merely wanting others to behave in a manner they think is acceptable. Some people think folks who are drinking should not be "allowed" to carry a gun. The truth is that is just their opinion of how people should behave and their desire to have them behave the way they want them to.
Once people are either "allowed" or "not allowed" then a right becomes a privilege controlled by whoever is doing the "allowing".
And never forget that the definition of what is a "reasonable restriction" will change depending on who is in power. As can be seen from this discussion my definition of what is a "reasonable restriction" and others obviously differ.
The bottom line is that the framers set the framework for current law, but the meaning of it will always change and it needs to.
The bottom line is that a "right" is inviolate because if it isn't then it becomes a privilege that can be regulated, denied, and even eliminated at the whim of whomever happens to think it should be....by whomever decides that society has outgrown the concept of "rights" and only "privileges" that can be controlled are the way to go.
And if the meaning is up for grabs then it becomes easy to believe that whomever is in charge can change it to suit their whims at the time.
The Constitution being written when it was has to adapt to current life, and what it is now and how it is molded in courts will continue to change forever.
No.. the Constitution does not have to adapt to current life... current life has strayed from the principles contained in the Constitution. And those who think it should change and has to change and it is OK to change it actually want only one thing.... to have things changed into what they, in their arrogance, think is proper... to have everyone else do what they themselves think is proper... to force everyone else to do what they themselves think is proper... in short, to control everyone else by taking away the freedoms contained within the Constitution.
Do you think current laws and the Constitution as written will have the same bearing in 500 years from now?
Yes... the principles contained within the Constitution... the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, to be safe from search and seizure without due process... and all the rest... will have the same bearing 500 years from now because the Constitution isn't about how we go about our daily lives... it is all about having the freedoms to go about our daily lives.
No, it has to change to the times and remain the framework for our government and adapt to current times through the court system and through us as voters.
Those who believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights has to "adapt" are using code words for........
"I want people to do what I want them to do and the only way is to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to take away their freedoms so I can force them to do what I want them to do."
