All of which may be true, which makes "abiding by the Constitution" all the more difficult.
It sure is "difficult" for some.
All of which may be true, which makes "abiding by the Constitution" all the more difficult.
Ah, it's so kind of you to grant a waiver to that particular group!
What a joke.
It sure is "difficult" for some.
For adhering to the letter of the law re that particular amendment, but that has nothing to do with "abiding by the Constitution" in toto. And there's a lot of Constitution.
Why not switch to "believe in the people"? This is particularly amusing. What "people"? "Real" Americans?
AAA already told you why, the first cause is explanatory. That is the ruling of courts. It is also explained as an individual right by many of the Founders during the debate over the Constitution. And most telling, it has always been treated as an individual right.Who's trying to rewrite it? If the subject was "settled", why not just delete the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clause and be done with it? Save everybody a lot of trouble? Perhaps it wasn't "settled" after all.
We can switch to Believe in the People, since that one should be much easier for you. I can understand why'd you'd want to backtrack from the previous statements you've made on the Constitution one.
I think, but cannot be certain, that "Believe in the People" is to believe that they know what is best for them, and government does not. But it is quite cryptic. I'll bet, however, if you dig a bit you can get a better understanding of just what they mean by that.
AAA already told you why, the first cause is explanatory. That is the ruling of courts. It is also explained as an individual right by many of the Founders during the debate over the Constitution. And most telling, it has always been treated as an individual right.
For fucks sake dude, do you really believe that people were just buying guns all over the country, illegally, for like the first 100+ years of our nations history with no govt intervention? Washington had an army march on some State or town where they refused to pay taxes on whiskey (or whatever) you don't think he would have done something about guns? Wake up man, your argument is absurd.
And yes you are trying to rewrite history, you're essentially saying that we, the people AND the govt, had it all wrong up until now. You don't see the moonbat in that? lol
yea yea, piss poor dodge right here. We were just talking about the 2nd.It's irrelevant. The discussion has to do with "abiding by the Constitution", or rather the difficulties of agreeing on what that means.
I have only gone back a few pages....
but is someone arguing... that the people do not have a right to keep and bear arms?
Could the document be any more clear... once you look up the words?