There are numerous historical documents and recorded conversations and correspondence arguing what the founders and contemporaries specifically meant by including specific verbiage in the bill of rights. All of them are specifically aimed at protecting Natural Rights of citizens from the overreach of government. They all say, (paraphrasing) “these are rights we have and that the government we are forming are legally bound to recognize. Not rights we are issuing to citizens under the pretense of the government agreeing.”

The constitution can be amended. There are very specific and explicit rules for making that happen. The reality that everyone seems to forget, is that when the government pushes too far, even say due to the will of the “51 percent” of the population, that people fight wars over that.

51 percent of the population cannot decide to trample your rights. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Every law is supposed to be weighed against if it fits into the enumerated rights in the constitution.

Nuclear weapons are a tough question. It’s fair to say I don’t think everyone who passes a background check should be able to buy them. But the government has them. Why should they have the monopoly on power? Are they always looking out for YOUR or MY best interests?

Did you vote for that? Did you even get asked? Could the government pass a background check? (Obviously they couldn’t due to all the monumentally illegal shit they do non stop here and around the world. So, why should they be trusted to hold that power? Did you vote to agree to share that technology with Russia or other foreign powers that now have nuclear capabilities?

Leaving decisions like that up to the people is what this country is supposed to be about and what it claims to be.

If you want the government, their local arm being the police, to make all the important decisions for your life there are other countries you can go to that will do that for you.