The interesting thing is the USA constitution is a case study in what is good and bad about enshrining rights in a constitution.

The positives are:

* The legislature can't just go crazy and enact wacky stuff. Well it can - but it might be taken to task for it.

The negatives are:

* The definition of what those rights mean can extend further than may have been intended. For example the right to free speech in the usa extends to a bunch of actions not just what you say. Working out the limits creates a shit ton of legal proceedings and complexity to the law.

* Often rights made sense at the time but make less sense over time.

The second amendment is the poster boy for that last one.

Introduced at a time when America faced a legitimate threat of land invasion from other nations, when the lack of communication would make it up to the local community to fend off a front line assault until reinforcements could come. Introduced at a time when there was a very limited police force and when due to isolation it might legitimately fall to a property owner to protect his family and assets alone. In these circumstances the founders considered that it was right to let civilians have firearms - which by modern standards would be antique weapons that take many moments to reload - so long as those civilians were well regulated.

THAT was the intent and why you have the 2nd ammendment.

Today we live in a world where America has the largest and most obscenely powerful army in history. There is zero chance of any nation launching a ground invasion and if they did - they would be wiped from the map in seconds. In the absurdist event that something like that did happen - reinforcements would be able to be sent in moments due to real time monitoring - and instantaneous communication. The distances between areas are covered in moments by jets and ariel weapons the founding fathers could never have even imagined.

Meanwhile If a property owner is undefended - he need only call the modern police department - a highly regulated force of thousands. Meanwhile the weapons available to buy are many many times more powerful than the muskets of old - they reload faster, shoot further, more accurate etc etc etc.

Basically the scenario the founding fathers faced when they enacted that right has absolutely no relationship anymore to the world we live in.

My issue is that with the 3 guitarists the handoffs were worse.

Most of the solos were divided between at least 2 guitarists - often mid way through the solo.

So the first 5 secs or so after the switch over the sound people will be fumbling to raise the level of the right guy. Often the camera guy does the same too.

Think of PC Rock In Rio 2006 where you can't even hear bumble's outro. It happened all the time.

But I agree the modern band isn't perfect. Melissa needs to be heavily scaled back. Frank needs to go. Axl needs his 2016 voice not his 2017 voice.

It's a crime they didn't reunite in 2006 I think. We would have had the best stuff ever.

I think they're going to do something but I think this year is too soon.

We have a break now where they can be recording, but we know mid year they're doing another leg of NITL shows.

It would be weird to relaunch a new branded cycle without letting the market re-set a bit from the 2 legs of the NITL tour.

So I think it's record now, finish off the NITL tour, then a break of some kind, then the new album and cycle - maybe 2019.

The other issue is I saw in the media a fresh round of Axl/Dc rumours. That could take up a bit of time. So we might be looking at Axl DC 2019 and GNR 2020.

Should be a good read. He's very honest which will be interesting.