Si modo
Diamond Member
Oh, the moonbats sure as hell want control on speech. "Fairness" Doctrine.It's not even that esoteric.I "grasp" the entire amendment..in plain text.
It assures the right of the "people" (not person) as in collective, to bear arms, to insure the security of the state in a militia.
It does not protect the right to hunt.
It does not protect the right to conceal carry.
It does not protect the right to use arms for home protection.
It does not protect the right to "stand your ground".
That comes from case law.
No. You clearly do not "grasp" the meaning of the Second Amendment very well at all.
The right of the People is not intended to convey some collectivist tripe. You have the right as a person. I have the right as a person. Together, we have it as people. But the plural doesn't erase the singular.
That is a strained and irrational interpretation you offer. It makes NO sense. And I will now prove it:
The FIRST Amendment (among other things) guarantees the right of the "people" to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Are YOU suggesting that we can petition the gubmint but only if we do it in groups of two or more?
Both "speech" and "arms" maintain the position in the sentence structure know as "object".
Neither "speech" nor "arms" can act independently...They require humans to use or misuse them.
Shallow's completely spurious and specious deflection to case law fails the basic rules of 3rd-grade English composition.
Yet, somehow or another, we never hear howling from the leftbats for more speech control, every time that Al Sharpton shoots off his big fat bigoted mouth or Doris Kearns Goodwin gets caught plagiarizing.