The 2nd Amendment only needs to be amended with the following sentence, "Gun-haters shall eat **** and die."
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
The bomb itself was the same one used in a small tactical rocket called the "Davy Crockett." It was just under a foot in diameter and about sixteen inches long, and it could be set to yield as little as the equivalent of ten tons of TNT, or as much as one thousand. It weighed just over fifty pounds--so the complete demolition device, with pack, timer, etc. must have weighed somewhat more. Pretty small, but not quite like the briefcase-sized things I've seen them portrayed as in movies.
The right to keep and bear arms that the Second Amendment guarantees is fundamental, and it existed before the Constitution. That raises the question how it very well could be amended. The wording is purely negative, telling the United States it may not infringe this long-recognized, fundamental right.
What would an amendment say--yes, you can infringe it as you see fit? It seems to me that the idea of amending the Bill of Rights, which tells government what it may not do, necessarily involves giving government power to dispense or withhold basic rights. And in that way, it violates the essence of the Bill of Rights.
Men dont need muscle cars either. People dont 'need' 4-wheelers, they can get around perfectly find with a 4WD SUV.
Who needs a $6000 Fendi bag? Did I miss where anyone needs personal 4 or 6 seater airplanes?
In America, it's called 'free will' and 'personal liberty.' (And before you try it, lots of these things, named and unnamed, can kill if used improperly).