New Argument for Gun Rights Advocates: "**** you."

[Bill of Rights]

They were adopted in the same manner as any later amendments, but they are a list of restrictions to federal power. Please to be explaining the process that allows the federal government(or the states through the 14th amendment)to amend or repeal that which they have no constitutional authority over.

You can go to any online source discussing the possibility of repeal of any of the Bill of Rights and inevitably the 18th(Prohibition) and 21st amendments are cited as proof that 1-10 can be amended or repealed,..............but last time I checked neither 18 nor 21 were in the BoR. Yes, there's a process for amendment; no, it's not valid for 1-10 because Congress shall make no law,......shall not be infringed,......and all the other shall nots.

That's the whole point, though. It would not be Congress making a law. That's a different process: House 1 committee, full House/Senate vote, repeat in 2nd House (both requiring simple majority,) then to POTUS.... vs. House 1, House 2, Legislatures of the several States, requiring a supermajority at each step. No part of the Constitution "cannot be amended", but the bar was set extraordinarily high to make it exceedingly difficult to accomplish. Just because it has not been done does not mean it cannot be done.

Fortunately, insofar as the 2A is concerned, according to (I think) Cruikshank, the right itself predates and is not dependent upon the 2A. Even without those 27 words, we still have the RKBA. Admittedly, however, retaining those arms would probably get very bloody, very quickly.

Thanks for your input. You have an interesting perspective, even if we disagree on the specific point to which it led you.

Blessings,
Bill