WRONG Joe, The Second Amendment IS ABSOLUTE

  The old guy traveled to NYC to visit the new mayor and address the rise in crime where he took it as an opportunity to go after gun owners and the Second Amendment vs criminals, claiming 'there's no amendment that's absolute'!

Everything this man said about the Second Amendment is categorically, factually and HISTORICALLY false!
'... shall not be infringed' is an absolute statement, one that has enraged Leftists for decades. 2A is the ONLY amendment with its own built in Do Not Touch Clause Leftists have known about and have been trying for decades to redifine, along with the rest of the 2A text.
The Founders intentions were absolutely clear when they wrote 2A that they wanted the People to be as well armed as the govt. There were NO limitations of any kind on the types of weapons nor the technology of weapons (Leftists like to claim 2A only applies to muskets). That being said let's just jump right to the extreme question the Left loves to use: Does that mean civilians have the right to own bazookas, tanks, jets... nuclear weapons!!?
Y E S
The Founders had just fought the biggest most powerful military in the world, outmanned and outgunned, the last thing they wanted was for citizens to be in that situation again should tyrants rise to power in America. Think of it as the first case of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), with the idea that if the govt, "Guards", got out of control the people could 'provide new Guards for their future security' with minimal conflict since it would be a fair fight!
"First and foremost in that dusty old Declaration of Independence it establishes that natural rights (where a few years later 10 are spelled out in the Constitution) are inherent to all people and “unalienable”.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
“Unalienable” [inalienable] means : impossible to take away or give up – this is an absolute statement.
The Second Amendment reads: 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.
“Infringed” means: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another | obsolete
“Shall Not Be Infringed” MEANS the rights in this Amendment SHALL NOT/ WILL NOT be encroached upon, violated or rendered obsolete. This is an absolute statement, and 2A is the ONLY Amendment that has it’s own ‘Do Not Touch’ clause! And yet here we have the current ‘President’ of the United States, who also served as Vice Pres for 8 years and a US Senator for over 30, claiming what we see with our own eyes in the text of our founding documents is not so.
This is gaslighting on steroids, and anyone who agrees with this cognitively declined old man is a fool." ~AAP
Don't care what Leftists say on this issue it's fact; they hate facts that violate their "truths" aka beliefs.
Next, do you think the British were just going to Concord and Lexington to collect a couple muskets, pistols and gun powder?? NO, they were also looking for cannons that civilians had every right to own.
Civilians today own cannons, machine guns, tanks, fighter jets etc... if they have the money to afford them. The govt has stepped in to make it harder to own weapons which technically is a violation of 2A.
You should also know semiautomatic technology existed in the 18th century! They didn’t use the Puckle gun for example it because of its cost and it was not portable, it was a semiautomatic gun meant to be mounted on a ship - BUT again the tech existed.
It’s no wonder cursive writing isn’t taught anymore, if the Left gets their way all modern text of the Founder's writings will be destroyed and no one will be able to read the original text in the Federalist Papers!