TN and WY both have proposed legislation defying any further restrictions being looked at by the legislatures.
As has MO.TN and WY both have proposed legislation defying any further restrictions being looked at by the legislatures.
You seem to overlook what I have said over and over, that ability to change would NOT be upto the council but put before the voting public
I am just not in favor of direct vote, democracy on issues that involve my rights
Without belaboring the point, we don't live in a "Democratic Republic". We live in a "Federated Republic". There's a huge difference.There, I changed the above quote to substitute in another constitutionally protected right. I imagine we all see a problem with it put that way.
Just because a majority of voters feels a certain way, does not make it acceptable. We do not live in a Democracy, instead we live in a Democratic Republic. The difference is the protection that the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives. Voters can only overcome the protections guaranteed in the Constitution by amending it. This, of course, has been done a few times before, and it's the only way to legally remove the protections.
The intent and definition of the 2nd Amendment can be debated all day, but I believe that since it covered cannons (obvious military arms), its intent was easy to divine. However, current popular opinion seems to be different, especially regarding the meaning of "infringed".