- Feb 22, 2017
- 109,355
- 38,046
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #241
If I understand Gator correctly, he is saying that the 2nd applies to all weapons. Both the right and the left have worked to limit our possession of all sorts of weapons through illegal/unconstitutional legislation.Yeah, just keep believing the terms used didn't mean exactly what Howard said at the time they were written. The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
.
You and I can go back and forth all day and night, eventually SCOTUS will have to weigh in on this one. Till then you and I will likely never agree.
I am a Textualist which is defined as:
An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution. Textualists often are skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective "intent."
Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
You only need to look at the common usage and understood meanings of the words, at the time the text was written. Then you have the congressional and ratification debates. It's not freaking rocket science.
.
And yet here we are with 100 plus years of the words being viewed differently than you view them.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
funny coming from someone that thinks the 2nd only applies to muskets.
Just because the 14th has been misinterpreted for years does not make that interpretation right.
Correct me if I am wrong, Gator.
You are correct. Most on the “right” have no problem with things like machines guns and grenade launchers being illegal to own for most people.
Which goes against the idea the 2nd is there to keep the government in check
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com