It's interesting that there is a political label (2nd Amendment advocates) for Americans who respect the entire Constitution but no label for those who attack it. Why should Bill of Rights advocates be on the defensive after the greatest document in human existence established the greatest Country on the planet? Why debate the Bill of Rights after 250 years of freedom? Figure it out.
A) Not everyone who is an advocate of the 2nd Amendment cares about the entire COTUS, in fact most hardcore gungho second amendment folks are idiots who have no concept of the COTUS and merely fear that the gummit gonna get their guns.
B) Not everyone who advocates SOME for of gun control hates the COTUS
C) If the COTUS were so easily understood then all of these things would have been worked out years ago. What i find especially funny is that people who can barely write a legible sentence think they understand the COTUS better than trained legal scholars.
You gotta wonder about posters who call themselves "the brain" and use a cartoon character to represent themselves. The unsubstantiated argument that "not everyone who is an advocate of the 2nd Amendment cares about the Constitution" is just about as stupid as using the word "hates" and about as disrespectful as using the acronym COTUS for the US Constitution. There is about a room full of law books dedicated to restrictions on the the 2nd amendment. When the left uses the term "restrictions" they usually mean confiscation. Remember that when arguing with anti-COTUS neo-socialists.
When they start talking about the 1st Amendment watch out.