Josh Horwitz apparently believes if a government declares slavery for blacks, or extermination of Jews, or capital punishment for homosexuals the law of the land then the targeted people need to just accept it. Not only does he apparently believe it is true he wants to ensure such a government won’t have to worry about serious resistance:
It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to “suppress insurrections.” A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be “tyrannical” is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.
Odd, isn’t it, that the same set of people that just successfully overthrew a tyrannical government in the late 1770’s would write a constitution with the intent the new government should be able to disarm the populace so future generations would not be able to do the very thing they had to do?
Of course the above is a rhetorical question. Horwitz has his head “in the sand” (this is a family friendly blog). If you read some of the amicus briefs you will see Horwitz gets his head handed to him.
That’s the “Living Document” interpretation of the Constitution, which in a nutshell (apropos term, isn’t it?) says that the Constitution means anything you want it to mean.
Or as I’ve had it explained to me by an adherent to the “Living Document” model:
“What was right for them, back then, was right for them. What’s right for us, today, is right for us, and that’s how it’s supposed to be. See?”
This is what passes for intellectual sophistication.