Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
It says, well regulated militia are necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
OK, now, copy and paste what it actually says in the second amendment under what you just posted and you will/or should be, able to tell who has a comprehension problem...everyone else will be able to tell.
not defense of natural rights.
you keep pretending that is in the constitution...if that has any bearing on rights then eventually we will have no rights at all, which of course is what the right is claiming you are really up to by going after the constitution on amendment two, the "no defense of natural rights" argument is exactly what you would need to go after the constitution...I have to ask now...after reading the second amendment do you personally think the comprehension level of those on the left leaves them feeling that they can point to the second amendment in a courtroom and claim that it says right there that "the congress can make laws that infringe on our rights to bear arms"? keep in mind that the question is what you think of the lefts comprehension level as the 2nd amendment reads...anything else will be a dodge
Last edited: