I know them and reject them.
Next time @ me
It’s your right to say that. 
3 Likes
Well sure you know them now. Sneaky just told you. But what did he say that was factually wrong? Everything?
Why? Aren’t you reading the thread? The @ function is for soliciting a response. I wasn’t.
Neither the text nor the intent have changed since it was written and codified into law.
1 Like
Did the English language change that drastically?
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s as plain in 2020 as it was in 1791.
And before you bring up the “militia,” said militia was the body of the citizenry. Ever man who was physically able to bear arms was a part of the militia.
1 Like
Context changed.
1791 is orders of magnitude different than 2020.
Then amend the document.
The government doesn’t just get to go “oh, well times changed…”.
1 Like
Neither the text nor the intent have changed.
1 Like
No, no it is not. Not when it comes to the basic rights of citizens. That context doesn’t change.
This isn’t Mass Effect 3 where you can just patch in a new ending because all the fans threw a fit about it.
You would need to amend the text in its entirety. Even with that said, to do so would destroy the social contract that gave birth to this country.
1 Like
The Army hasn’t used them for decades prior to my enlistment.
How has it changed?
He’s right. To, not about please.
Maybe I should say the environment changed. We are not the same society that we were in 1791. The founders could have never predicted the internet, automatic weapons, freed black people, etc.
They made the document with the context/environment they had in 1700s. Sure we could and should amended the document but that is impossible today. Why? Because of another thing they could not have predicted two party rule (or political parties at all)
Not at all true. They did predict all those things and many more.
“Automatic weapons”? See #6.
They did predict two party rule, in fact they warned against it.
Your post is rife with things that just simply are not true.
The environment has not changed at all. The Constitution with the Bill of Rights was written to structure a government while restricting it from running roughshod over the rights of individuals.
What has changed?
The 2nd Amendment was included to address the need for the individual to have a means of self-defense, both from individuals as well as the collective in the form of government. It was also included to ensure a means of addressing the loss of rights because 51% voted to take them.
2 Likes
Internet? 
Excuse me while I get my musket and my horse drawn wagon.
Sure. That doesn’t mean that any and every “arm” ever created is yours to “keep and bear”. That was affirmed by the SC.
Imagine being so brainwashed that you think your rights come from a bench of old people with opinions. 
7 Likes
4th Amendment. Effects.
A musket is an arm. An AR14 is an arm. What does the 2nd Amendment say, musket or arm?
Horse power.
Actually it does. The SCOTUS is in violation of the Constitution. The rationalization has been made and accepted. Out of fear.
Slippery slope
1 Like
Optics don’t help you shoot better, they help you see better.
That is no excuse. 
