Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 2001566" data-attributes="member: 239">Except that single bolded word is the source of ALL the problem. To anti-gunners 3 day waiting periods, NICS checks, onerous taxes, bans on scary looking arms and all the other BS that is extant are not infringements.Rewrite the 2nd and tell the government exactly what it cannot do, exactly. Tell &#039;em that anything goes except banning rubber band guns or tell &#039;em they can&#039;t do squat but tell &#039;em in the amendment EXACTLY&nbsp; what it cannot do and EXACTLY what it can do and don&#039;t leave any room for doubt because if there is room then it&#039;s a 100% foregone conclusion that some weasel politician will take advantage of the doubt be it for us or agin us.Volumes have been written about what the 2nd means. What it allows and doesn&#039;t allow. If the 2nd had been written more precisely one opines that there wouldn&#039;t have been volumes written on the subject.AND that&#039;s the point. The 2nd in its current iteration is open to interpretation because it is not exact enough and the founders did not take into account that language changes (ex. regulated in the 18th century doesn&#039;t mean the same thing it means today).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 2001566, member: 239"] Except that single bolded word is the source of ALL the problem. To anti-gunners 3 day waiting periods, NICS checks, onerous taxes, bans on scary looking arms and all the other BS that is extant are not infringements. Rewrite the 2nd and tell the government exactly what it cannot do, exactly. Tell 'em that anything goes except banning rubber band guns or tell 'em they can't do squat but tell 'em in the amendment EXACTLY what it cannot do and EXACTLY what it can do and don't leave any room for doubt because if there is room then it's a 100% foregone conclusion that some weasel politician will take advantage of the doubt be it for us or agin us. Volumes have been written about what the 2nd means. What it allows and doesn't allow. If the 2nd had been written more precisely one opines that there wouldn't have been volumes written on the subject. AND that's the point. The 2nd in its current iteration is open to interpretation because it is not exact enough and the founders did not take into account that language changes (ex. regulated in the 18th century doesn't mean the same thing it means today). [/QUOTE]

Verification