Changing the Bill of Rights?

So, I have a question, how does any politician or judge get away with meddling with any portion of the Bill of Rights? Particularly the 2nd amendment. To amend numbers 1 - 10 requires a 2/3 vote in congress, a 2/3 vote in the senate, a presidential signature and ratification by 38 states. Is anything that is restrictive to the 2A really law, because without the process above 2A can not be changed or amended? And how can one person, a judge or an executive order change anything in the Bill of Rights? Is it just so simple as they get away with it or something else? Do we need the Supreme Court to rule on the definition of the word "Infringed"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big E3

So, I have a question, how does any politician or judge get away with meddling with any portion of the Bill of Rights? Particularly the 2nd amendment. To amend numbers 1 - 10 requires a 2/3 vote in congress, a 2/3 vote in the senate, a presidential signature and ratification by 38 states. Is anything that is restrictive to the 2A really law, because without the process above 2A can not be changed or amended? And how can one person, a judge or an executive order change anything in the Bill of Rights?

---

By changing the definition of the words.

And by defining comma's, and other punctuation.

Language evolves over time... If you can direct that the way you want, you can change the perceived meaning o of something written over 200 years ago

Does "is" mean is and does "if" mean if? Redefine words, control the language and control the debate. I have a couple of dictionaries from the 1920's and 1930', and will sometimes refer to them when discussing the meaning of things said and there are changes to the language happening.

Yup. It's all about interpretation and perception. Because the American English has changed, the meaning of the original statement has been open to re-interpretation, and the perception has been shifted. The current SCOTUS have done a pretty good job of swinging the perception or interpretation back to as close as one could expect to get in modern times.

There is still work to be done, I think the re-examination of "infringed" is certainly a great idea, but it will take much $$$ to get that moving forward.