Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Hold on a second there. You don't have to have your car registered or insured or follow any laws if you're on private property. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want in private. But when you bring your car onto PUBLIC roads, you don't have the same rights. That road isn't yours, it's the taxpayers'.
The other problem with your post is that if you resent expansion of second amendment rights (it's not originalist! The Founders meant militia!)--and they have only been expanded to the point that it is unconstitutional to ban firearms outright or require them to be inoperable--then how do you feel about the heavy reinterpretation of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments that occurred during the civil rights era? It would be difficult to argue that the original intent of the constitution assumed the inherent coerciveness of custodial interrogation (of course, Miranda may be on a path to be reinterpreted back into oblivion), or that the fourteenth amendment originally precluded segregation (or, hypothetically, allowed gay marriage). The originalist argument for expansion of the second amendment is likely stronger than in many of those other cases.
Your argument amounts to "I resent the expansion of the amendments that I don't like," and "I resent giving equal rights to people that I don't like."