The Bill of Rights is commonly viewed as consisting of the first ten articles of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. But it is the specific guarantees of individual liberties in the first eight amendments that the public normally regards as the Bill of Rights.It seems like I hear more about the 2nd Amendment than any of the others, of course that could be due to what I'm reading. The whole thing seems a bit antiquated to me, I must admit. Haven't many of these Amendments been variously interpreted through the years? There are ones about the nature of an accusation, about the “assistance of counsel” for the defense, the right to a trial by jury in civil cases, and the Amendment which protects individuals from punishments that are too harsh and fines and bail that are too high. Haven't these rights been treated in an extremely flexible manner throughout the centuries?
Why then is the 2nd Amendment spoken of with such reverence, as if it were an untouchable right, certainly not something up for interpretation or even discussion?
In 18th Century America weren't there a number of laws that have since been changed or actually repealed? Why would the 2nd Amendment be considered inviolate? Why do I so often here about the "Founders," as if that should lend weight or credibility? Aren't they the same guys who had slaves and denied women basic human rights? How does that work?
I'm sure these simple questions have been asked and answered, but indulge me if you would.