Not sure about the hands-free/texting while driving laws in other states but Connecticut takes this seriously as an issue and has been adapting to the problem for close to a decade now. https://www.dmv.com/ct/connecticut/distracted-driving-laws
There's a good chance the constitution is never ratified without the 2nd amendment. California, a hyper liberal anti-gun state, seems like they're getting closer and closer to a position to want to use it.
Meh, I’m not to sure about that. I don’t know the stats, but given the number of military bases out there, I’d think a pretty large proportion of Californians are connected at the hip to the federal government. Much more so than some redneck heaven like say Montana. You think California is actually close to armed insurrection against federal tyranny? That’s dotard-worthy thinking.
I don't expect to see any shots fired any time soon, but they are very much at odds with the feds. If relations continue to degrade I could see conflict. That doesn't mean I expect it. I point it out more as an example of why they included the 2A to begin with. The people in the local governments can organize and stand up for themselves.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the safety of a free State” equals “A motley band of squirrel eating nitwits, being necessary to preserve the spirit of resistance against federal tyranny?” It’s almost as if the constitution is this living, breathing thing you can interpret any way you like.
The Constitution was ratified by the thirteenth state in 1788. The Second Amendment was added in 1791 as part of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, after being debated and passed by a two-thirds margin in the House and Senate, as required by the Constitution, and then ratified by three fourths of the states as further required. This is the problem with the political debates of our time. We've gotten to the point that everybody wants their own facts instead of their own opinions. This makes the political arguments of the day into two echo chambers, frequently full of false arguments, blaring at each other and deafening the rest of us in the process. And I know you probably just didn't know that the Second Amendment was added after the Constitution was ratified, but how did you form that opinion? Somebody likely told you it was true and because you agreed with them politically on other stuff you took their word for it.
No, they only agreed to ratify on the condition that the bill of rights would be proposed and sent to the states for ratification if it passed the Congress. There was no out clause in the Constitution, as the Confederacy discovered 72 years later. If any of the amendments had not passed, as the initial 1st and 2nd failed to do, they were still in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Compromise The Federalists agreed to support the bill of rights to get the support they needed from the anti-federalists and in turn get the Constitution ratified. I guess they could have gone back on that but it likely would have ended very badly.
