- Thread starter
- #41
Their definition of "infringe" depends very greatly on the right in question - if they like that right, just about any restriction is an infringement; if they do not, then hardly anything qualifies.What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Hopefully they will see it now.
Fact of the matter is, there's a well-established template for determining what qualifies as a constitutionally-acceptable restriction on the right to arms - one need only look at the right to free speech, and apply those principles.