Sometimes. But in this instance the strict textualism of the 2nd is precisely on point. Your interpretation of it is the only thing that is stupid.
1 Like
Then if there is strict textualism, Congress can make laws restricting ammunition.
No! Ammunition is part of arms. Arenāt you listening?
Not under the strict textualist interpretation.
Damn it! Quit making ā ā ā ā up! Ammunition is integral to firearms. Strictly speaking and by definition.
1 Like
But it isnāt spelled out by name in the Constitution.
The card says moops.
The definition of words arenāt spelled out anywhere in the Constitution. Your card is worthless.
That is an anti textualist argument right there.
Itās not an argument at all. Itās a fact.
Itās not that Iām afraid, itās that I know I am an irresponsible ass. 
1 Like
cool letās let only some religion in schools, letās bar political speech by the left.
Is that happening in Florida?
Yes it is.
It doesnāt have to be, but it is. @Samm already explained it.
Get somebody who knows something about guns to build you a Play-doh model.
No.
ā¦
No, but I see why you are deflecting
Nahā¦ I am just talking about why strict textualism is very silly.
No right is absolute. There are all limited in one degree or another.
So you admit, not carrying a gun is irresponsible. 
1 Like
You have the absolute right to say that. Which proves you wrong.
Once again, a toddler can comprehend the 2nd Amendment.
It takes an āeducatedā lib to get it confused.
This is a verifiable fact that can be reproduced on demand.
3 Likes
