The Founding Fathers Would Merit Altering the 2nd Amendment

Many 2nd Amendment proponents point to some idea that the founding fathers of the US would "roll over in their graves" if they knew we changed or otherwise abolished the 2nd amendment. Although the amendment was largely uncontroversial in its ratification, My opponents would suggest the amendment is immutable and debating it would be offensive to the founding fathers. My Platform: 1. Although quoted in favor of gun control many times because of his Anti-Federalism, Jefferson's other quotes strongly suggest he'd be willing to consider changes to the 2nd Amendment. Here's perhaps the strongest quote on that, One ingrained in his memorial in DC: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, More enlightened, As new discoveries are made, New truths discovered and manners and opinions change, With the change of circumstances, Institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. " Jefferson was keenly aware of the folly of humans and our rules. He also believed context and morality change over time, And rules should change with them. Much of his Anti-Federalism was based on the premise that laws should be alterable and even mutable. 2. Also a Jefferson point, This shows up in a draft of the Virginia constitution that he chiefly authored: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]. " While this did not get ratified in this form, It suggests Jefferson immediately saw the need to set limits on gun rights and use. Jefferson in 1776 already saw reason to prevent concealed carry or the rights of citizens to possess a gun outside of their private property. Thus, Since Jefferson was already willing to reconsider the reach of a 2nd Amendment in his own time. 3. The biggest sponsor of the 2nd Amendment was James Madison. The entire basis and intent of the amendment was to emphasize the militia clause. The right to bear arms was fundamentally based on it. This is why it shows up first in the amendment as such: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " A well regulated militia within each state never fully came to fruition. States never became a physical check and balance for the federal government, Regardless of anyone's intention of making them so. If James Madison could see that the US failed to incorporate this idea successfully, He'd likely be willing to reconsider. 4. Federalists themselves were originally opposed to a 2nd Amendment and would remain so today based on how the country evolved. The issue of federal power is fundamentally different than it was when Madison sponsored this text. The interpretation of a free state, For one, Is far eroded from its original meaning. Power is very consolidated at a federal level. As the country progressed, It became clear that we needed to unite to participate in the global stage. Our credibility was secured by ensuring we weren't fighting against each other, But instead working together. This is actually tangentially related to the cause that Federalists were fighting for from the beginning. 5. This point also implicates all of the founding fathers, Both federalist and anti-federalists. They found other ways to concede power to states in the Bill of Rights, In part because they themselves had uncertainty and doubts about how this country would actually form. Redundancy is baked into the Bill of Rights, And states today retain power by largely managing their own affairs, And by participating in both the House and Senate legislative bodies. 6. The Bill of Rights was largely shaped by the context of 1789, One that is unrecognizable today. This quote from Richard Henry Lee is a good microcosm: "A militia, When properly formed, Are in fact the people themselves, And render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. " Our national military grossly out powers any domestic militias. While opponents may argue that this military power could be distributed among militias, I find this point weak and illogical. First of all, The idea of militias scaling to be able to purchase aircraft carriers or jets is already a far stretch, And one that would actually favor cash rich "Federal" states over provincial states even if it were true (this would nullify the intent of antifederalist proponents of the bill). Secondly, If militias held that much power, They would defeat their original purpose. The entire point of militias is to: A. Represent civilians, And B. Prevent consolidation of power. A militia with 1/50th of the power of our national military would still realistically be massive and largely disconnected from citizens. Regardless of the likely objections our founding father's would have to our current military size and structure, They'd still be stuck considering whether or not the 2nd Amendment could achieve it's original goals. 7. War and power struggles have fundamentally changed. Nuclear weapons are the first point. Global leverage is largely acquired by the possession of nuclear weapons. This situation is already extremely dangerous, Which is why non-proliferation has been largely universally adopted, Prevent manufacturing of more nuclear weapons. The idea of state militias simply do not scale up to the current geopolitical power struggle, And enabling them to would only make the situation even more volatile. The entire face of war has become less about brute force, And more like a game of cards. Infantry is no longer a primary weapon, It is at best a pawn. Warfare is about presence, And sabotage. Often adversaries opt for hacking each other's computers, As this is far more effective in the grand scheme than troops on the ground are. The leverage militias may have once had is completely erased in today's international theater. Thus, Founding Fathers would be forced to reconsider the 2nd Amendment. BONUS: **I chose to frame the argument this way because I think it dismisses this entire argument. ** We deify the founding fathers and lose sight of the fact that they were humans and equally fallible and capable of mistakes as we are. If our founding fathers were morally and intentionally pure, Slavery would be abolished upfront, Regardless of how much it cost the country to make that decision politically or economically. This point suggests that we seek approval from equally fallible people when we defer to the founding fathers, Which nullifies this entire debate. However, It should be noted that the points above heavily describe how situational context in 1789 and prior largely shaped how and why the 2nd Amendment was ratified. We today, Are equally influenced by the present situational context, And are equally entitled to create or change laws based on that. Thomas Jefferson even said so, See point 1.