The Second Amendment Really Is Poorly Written...
quote:They had IQ's of 1420?!
Are you seriously trying to say that men who were 10 times smarter than you fricked up how they wrote something?
quote:The original documents you're giving me prove, literally, nothing. In fact, the original document you're showing me proves less than nothing. My assertion is that the original document includes the comma and that the versions ratified by the states do not. I'll see if I can find an original of one of those documents, but the document you posted, again, is entirely useless for the purposes of this discussion.
I'm giving you original government documents and you're giving me Joe Blow
quote:Sorry, are you suggesting that I personally disagree with the second? Because as it is, I can't make out what it means. In the context of the rest of the constitution, it seems blindingly obvious that ownership of guns is a privilege, not a right, unless as part of a militia. Still, that's not how it's ever been interpreted.
I'm guessing interpreting amendments written so long ago, any of them we personally disagree with will be
it seems blindingly obvious that ownership of guns is a privilege, not a right, unless as part of a militia. Still, that's not how it's ever been interpreted.
[Many] have serious issues with the way the amendment is worded, especially since the first amendment doesn't begin with "The ability to express one's views being essential to the nation's political thought..." Only the second amendment states an intent. That intent is driven directly toward the importance of a militia, not hunting or self defense.
I'm pretty sure the framers left the constitution vague for a good reason so it could apply to today's time. Loose but very clear.