Reading the two threads, the responses from the two tribes I find interesting.
In one, there is a clearly enumerated right. Present in the document to fulfill a promise allowing for ratification and and the forming of a country.
On the other hand, we have a “right”, fabricated out of torn cloth to appease a rabid feminist movement of the day. But which has indeed become a “right”; as practically no woman of childbearing age has been of that age without it. 2 generations now.
In both cases, government imposition is the root cause of ressentiment.
In each case, one tribe says “let the states decide.” Then it reverses with the topic.
In both cases, the government is choosing winners and losers. In both cases, morality is being imposed from afar.
It was a poorly written decision. It depended on a factor that was vague in regards to the constitution. Even those who supported Roe accepted that fact.
Congress should have done its job. Instead the court made a decision on the flimsiest of constitutional backing.
As there is no specific enumerated restriction of the manner by which an individual is allowed to bear arms, that would appear to be an issue reserved to the states, or in their absence, the people under the constitution. The only thing that appears to be “made up” is your observation.
They didn’t care how you carried them hence “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” No restrictions on how to bear them.
