Reply With Quote
Not me. Women. Women can't own every sort of weapon legally. It's as if Democrats and others opposed to gun rights prefer that women remain as permanent underdogs to men, in their odds of being victims (usually of men).Originally Posted by Town Heretic
It only presents a clear and present danger, as opposed to just a present danger without them, when there are real murderers and real rapists living among us, which there are. We all see the irony in that, especially wrt the Second Amendment's clear language.
iow, it's that murderers and rapists are real, that prima facie justifies the S. Ct.'s authorized interpretation of that law, at least verbally. If murderers and rapists were just figments, only appearing in novels and on television and in movies, then at least you'd have that to argue against expansive gun freedoms, corresponding to the inalienable gun rights that we all possess, and are enshrined in the Second's plain language.
But you don't even have that.
And also wrt 'the right was meant to serve' . . . there's something wrong in that word choice. The right is inalienable, not created, it is recognized, and affirmed in the Constitution, not granted, not like the right to a speedy trial, or the right to vote, or even the right to privacy. These are created, the right to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, is inalienable.
We have the right to defend our own lives, and, we have the inalienable right to defend innocent people. Things infringing this right, are any roadblocks, obstacles, speedbumps, etc., that interfere with how easy it is to obtain, procure, or take possession of all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, along with anything interfering with carrying them.
