Funny enough, every other country with strict gun laws don’t deal with a percentage of the bullshit America does.
Also funny enough, the “shall not be infringed” comes long after a pretty pivotal phrase of “well organized militia”. Unless you’re a well organized militia, the 2nd doesn’t apply to you.
Unless you’re a well organized militia, the 2nd doesn’t apply to you.
That’s not how the courts have interpreted that old English. Rather that the opening phrase is an example of how the right of the people could be applied, not that it is the only way it could be applied. Language evolves, but that doesn’t necessarily mean how we interpret a phrase written 200+ years ago should evolve with it. If you want to change the amendment, then you need a new amendment.
Nah that’s how it was conventionally interpreted (as a collective not individual right). You’re giving a c20 reinterpretation and claiming it was original.
Ironic that Democratic policies are hurting Democrats.
Fuck the dems, we need an actual pro-gun leftist party.
I always tell people when you get far enough left you end up back in the pro gun camp.
I always describe myself as an “under no pretext” gun supporter rather than a “shall not be infringed” supporter.
Funny enough, every other country with strict gun laws don’t deal with a percentage of the bullshit America does.
Also funny enough, the “shall not be infringed” comes long after a pretty pivotal phrase of “well organized militia”. Unless you’re a well organized militia, the 2nd doesn’t apply to you.
That’s not how the courts have interpreted that old English. Rather that the opening phrase is an example of how the right of the people could be applied, not that it is the only way it could be applied. Language evolves, but that doesn’t necessarily mean how we interpret a phrase written 200+ years ago should evolve with it. If you want to change the amendment, then you need a new amendment.
Nah that’s how it was conventionally interpreted (as a collective not individual right). You’re giving a c20 reinterpretation and claiming it was original.
I’m not giving anything. I’m just saying how it is currently viewed.
You sure seemed to be implying that that is how it was always viewed (“to change the meaning you need another amendment then”), come on now.
I’m giving my current understanding of the situation. I didn’t come up with either interpretation.