This morning I was watching a lawyer's commercial that was really quite odd. The commercial was the lawyer talking the whole time about the Second Amendment. The whole time he had to promote his business he spent to argue that those who supported the right to bear arms (singling out the NRA) were wrong simply because the Founders lived in another era, and the Constitution needed to be brought up to date. No mention of course of how that could be done.
He of course used a straw man argument, and reductio ad absurdum to ask why not give everyone the right to possess thermonuclear weapons. It was too ridiculous to not just laugh. I wouldn't want this guy being my lawyer, because the argument he made was so easily deconstructed that surely he would be a feeble opponent in court.
But it's interesting that he probably would not make the same argument for updating the First Amendment. Is that too an outdated notion?
Some truths are timeless. Forget the First Amendment, are the Ten Commandments out of date? Thou shalt not kill - too old fashioned?
No. But progressive liberalism is characterized by the selective application of principle, and the distortion of the opposition's point of view. So I'm not surprised by this at all.
But the Founding Fathers knew that the moment you turn your back on protecting liberty from tyranny, that's when liberty begins to decay. The Second Amendment is designed to keep the government accountable to the people. Without that accountability the government starts to think that it can do whatever it pleases with no consequence. Oh, wait...