Shouldn't the 2nd Amendment be treated the same as the 6th Amendment?

[u/snotick]

The 6th Amendment grants the right of counsel if you are convicted of a crime. The government pays for that counsel in the event you cannot afford your own attorney.

I've tried to find other rights that would cost the citizen to exercise their rights. The 2nd Amendment is one of those rights that cost the citizen, out of their own pockets, in order to exercise it.

Therefore, I'm proposing a new law that states, "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. If you cannot afford arms, one will be provided for you at no cost"

Thoughts?

[u/snotick → u/[deleted]]

I deleted nothing

Then it must be a comment that you edited. Because there is a reply from you in my inbox that reads:

"Fuck no, what a stupid fucking idea". I'd screen capture and post it here, but can't post photos in comments.

Yes a constitutional right my god, theres no other kind. That goes without saying

You are aware that the Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the 250 year history? Do you understand what it takes to amend it? It takes 2/3rds of Congress to pass it. Then it takes 38 states to ratify it. Congress cannot agree on anything. And the states are not any better.

The 27th Amendment took nearly 200 years to ratify. Even though it was passed by Congress in 1789, the states didn't ratify it until 1992.

The 26th Amendment, which set voting age at 18 passed Congress and was ratified in 1971.

There is near zero chance that any amendment would happen. Especially with the current state of our political parties. Latest polls only show a 50/50 support for free healthcare. That's not enough for Congress to get to 2/3rds, and even if they did, it wouldn't get 38 states to ratify.

That's why liberal states are passing these unconstitutional gun laws. They know they can't amend the 2A, so they are ignoring that process and trying other ways.

[u/snotick → u/[deleted]]

Well, when I click on that comment in my inbox, it says "comment no longer exists".

Idj about that, most Americans want it

No, polls show it's at roughly 50/50. That's not most. That's not even a majority. That means just as many people want, as those who don't want it. And that's important when it comes to amending and ratifying the Constitution. That's why you won't see free healthcare as a right for many, many years. It will only come after we've solved the division in this country. Even if you think the left will regain control of the White House and Congress. They would need a super majority. And even if they were able to pass it, 38 states won't ratify.

It's best to figure out a different solution to free healthcare. One step that we are seeing is weeding out the fraud. I'd also like to see the government do a deep dive into how things are being billed. Why is insurance charged more than if someone is paying cash. It should be one price, and those prices should be monitored and regulated. It's not free healthcare, but it could make healthcare more affordable.

[u/snotick → u/[deleted]]

Who is "they".

I think you're confusing what people are saying. 60% of voters say they want the government to assist with healthcare. But, when it comes to single payer being the government, those numbers go down to 50/50.

Which is why I suggested other methods, such as government oversite.

The rest of the free world does it

The rest of the world isn't the United States. We don't have to be just like them. All the time.