Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on background

[Lord Jim]

Given what the Court held in Heller and McDonald, I personally see no reason to "re-write" the 2nd Amendment....

The court has made the three core interpretations that I believe are right on the mark:

1.The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

2.Self-defense is the "central component" of that right.

3. The right is not unlimited.

I certainly don't always agree with the SC, but that get's it exactly right in my view.

Now, if in subsequent decisions I felt the court should go too far in one direction or the other, I might change my opinion. But as of now I see absolutely no reason to make any changes to the text, given the way it's been interpreted.

ETA:

And Jim--do you really believe that, absent the right to keep and bear arms, there is no constitutional right to self-defense?

Econo, where specifically in the Constitution other than in the 2nd Amendment, do you see a right to self-defense? (Personally I can see it possibly being implied in the 4th Amendment, but the 4th Amendment doesn't mention any mechanism to give the right to self-defense meaning, as the 2nd Amendment does.)

And if you do believe there is a Constitutional right to self-defense somewhere in the Constitution other than the 2nd Amendment, what do you believe the Constitution guarantees as a means for conducting that self defense? Pointy sticks?

[Econoline]

Try it this way: let's say the Second Amendment had never existed. (The Founding Fathers had a collective brain fart and simply forgot about it in all the confusion back then.) If it were being proposed today, would it still be necessary? a good idea? a bad idea? in need of different wording/rationale/limitations from the Amendment that actually was written back in the 18th century?

Is the main reason for keeping the Second Amendment "because it's already there, and would be impossible to remove" (a sentiment with which I agree, BTW) or is there really, truly some fundamental difference which would compel us to add a "right to keep and bear arms" (but not a "right to keep and use vehicles") to the Constitution now, if it wasn't already there?

The question is why--why now, in 21st century America, people consider owning a gun more important than owning a car or owning a house or owning a television. And not just more important--so MUCH more important and so MUCH more likely to be taken away by the government that gun ownership in particular is a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege.

One approach to the question might be to note that the authors of the existing 2nd Amendment put their "public policy justification" and "societal goal" right there in the amendment itself: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." I guessing that if an amendment regarding "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" were being (re)written today it would be worded somewhat (or completely?) differently...right? Would any of the passionate gun rights people here (Jim, or anyone else) care to try their hand at a modern rewrite?

I really didn't want to get into the question of whether of whether those who really really like the current 2nd amendment (including the NRA and the gun manufacturers, who are indeed "served well" by it ) would ever want to replace it with something more suitable for the 21st century. In that respect I know my question would have to be just a hypothetical one--though I really can't see who is served well by the inclusion of a militia as the sole justification for the right to keep and bear arms. The question is therefore simply what if we did rewrite it, rather than why or whether we should.

And Jim--do you really believe that, absent the right to keep and bear arms, there is no constitutional right to self-defense?

[Scooter]

where specifically in the Constitution other than in the 2nd Amendment, do you see a right to self-defense?

The Declaration of Independence makes reference to certain inalienable rights, first among these being the right to life, of which the right to self-defense must be an integral part. Being inalienable, there can be no legitimate action taken by government to curtail that right except in certain limited circumstances (such as those described in the Fifth Amendment), hence there would be no need to enumerate such a right in the Constitution. It would therefore fall into the scope of the Ninth Amendment,, i.e. one of those rights that exist regardless of whatever has been enumerated in the Constitution, and whose existence cannot be denied for lack of being so enumerated. To enumerate the right to self-defense would be to suggest that the Constitution could be amended to strip the people of that right, and that is something that no government has the power to do, because the right to self-defense is as fundamental to what it means to be human as breathing.

And if you do believe there is a Constitutional right to self-defense somewhere in the Constitution other than the 2nd Amendment, what do you believe the Constitution guarantees as a means for conducting that self defense? Pointy sticks

You yourself have pointed out that the SCOTUS has recognized that the right of self-defense has been a basic principle of law in societies throughout history. Are you suggesting that the right of self-defense in all of those societies except the U.S. has been completely toothless, for lack of a constitutional right to bear arms?

[Lord Jim]

Well first of all Scooter, the Declaration of Independence, in and of itself, has no force of law....

It can be, and often is (as are many other historical documents) referenced in SC decisions, but it is not a legally binding document in the way that the Constitution is.

Are you suggesting that the right of self-defense in all of those societies except the U.S. has been completely toothless, for lack of a constitutional right to bear arms?

What I'm saying is, that unless one recognizes a right to a means for self-defense, (like the right to keep and bear arms) than the right to self-defense is meaningless...(I don't have the time t o perform exhaustive research into how this was accomplished in earlier societies)

That seems incredibly obvious to me....

In the US Constitution, where else do you see the "teeth" to guarantee the right to self-defense, other than in the 2nd Amendment?

[Scooter]

Well first of all Scooter, the Declaration of Independence, in and of itself, has no force of law....

I did not say that it did. I said that it recognizes the existence of the right to life (which includes the right to self-defense) that is so fundamental that there was no need to enumerate it in the Constitution.

Or are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a right to life, simply because the Constitution does not explicitly say so?

Are you suggesting that the right of self-defense in all of those societies except the U.S. has been completely toothless, for lack of a constitutional right to bear arms?

What I'm saying is, that unless one recognizes a right to a means for self-defense, (like the right to keep and bear arms) than the right to self-defense is meaningless...

Thank you. Now I would appreciate it if you would answer the question I asked. Are you saying that in all of those societies throughout history that have recognized the right to self-defense, that the right is meaningless because it was not accompanied by a constitutional right to bear arms?

In the US Constitution, where else do you see the "teeth" to guarantee the right to self-defense, other than in the 2nd Amendment?

In the very fact that the right to self-defense exists regardless of whatever may be stated in the Constitution.

Very simple example - there are weapons that, even in the context of the Second Amendment, are illegal for individuals to possess. Let's say an individual's life is threatened by an assailant, and that individual uses one of those prohibited weapons to defend his/her life, killing his/her assailant in the process. Does the fact that the weapon was illegal change what was clearly self-defense into murder? Of course not, and neither would it if there was no such thing as a Second Amendment.

[Lord Jim]

Now I would appreciate it if you would answer the question I asked. Are you saying that in all of those societies throughout history that have recognized the right to self-defense, that the right is meaningless because it was not accompanied by a constitutional right to bear arms?

Asked and answered. Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort. Again, I'm not going to spend the time required to examine every single society throughout the whole of human history, and report back how each one did or did not codify the right to self-defense in it's laws in a meaningful way. (You're not going to get me to jump down that silly rhetorical rabbit hole)

Now I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my far more narrow, relevant, and specific question: (which unlike your question, shouldn't require untold hours of research)

"In the US Constitution, where else do you see the "teeth" to guarantee the right to self-defense, other than in the 2nd Amendment?"

[Scooter]

Are you saying that in all of those societies throughout history that have recognized the right to self-defense, that the right is meaningless because it was not accompanied by a constitutional right to bear arms?

I'm not saying anything of the sort.

So you are not prepared to say that the right to bear arms is a necessary condition of an effective right to self-defense. Thank you.

"In the US Constitution, where else do you see the "teeth" to guarantee the right to self-defense, other than in the 2nd Amendment?"

Asked and answered. Twice.

[oldr_n_wsr]

My 2cents
The constitution pretty much gives us the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness.
The 2nd amendment gives us one way to defend those rights. (There are other ways).