Why is discussing 2A farcical?
a century ago, 18A (prohibition) came into being, and then 14 years later it was repealed with 21A.
it was a farcical (with some hindsight/foresight) amendment to introduce and was recognized as such later in time as wrong and repealed…
why is 2A, or any other Amendment’s repeal or introduction, ‘farcical’ to discuss?
Why is 2A the amendment hill chosen to die on, as immutable?
I think , from outside, that is why it’s not ‘farcical’
the affects of 2A on the US population, also seem at odds with part of 8A - ‘cruel punishment’, though presumably that’s been argued aplenty already.
15A (race vote), 19A (sex vote) and 26A (age vote) would seem to be the opposite of 2A, ie new progressive changes to the constitution reflecting the changing nation.
the fact that 18A happened before 19A (albeit only a year) indicates that historical order doesn’t mean things were got ’right’ at the earliest point…
or even 2A before almost all the rest of the A’s.