I mentioned that Thomas Sowell had a piece on the McDonald case in my previous post. I was a bit disappointed, mainly because of my great esteem for the man.
He fell into the trap of: “If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other constitutional amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws.”
I don’t think he thinks there will be a bloodbath, but I am troubled he thinks the right is repealable. Sure sure, you can convince a goodly enough proportion of voters to repeal any of the Bill of Rights or Amendments that have to do with rights. We can repeal the 19th Amendment, for instance, and make women stay home on election day. The law will be changed but women's right to vote is still there. That right is just violated by the law at that point. The law will be wrong.
The 2nd Amendment can be repealed, and people can agree that you don’t have a right to defend yourself and prosecute you if you dare to, but… You still have that inalienable right. Like your right to life, liberty, and property. A person has to deprive someone else of their rights, generally, to be deprived of their own inalienable rights. (Well, in an ideal world they do.) Take another man's property and be prepared to be denied your own liberty. Take, or threaten, a life, and your right to life may be forfeit.
It’s hairsplitting and a pub argument, but… It still sticks in my craw.