- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,912
- Reaction score
- 19,601
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Giving in at all is unacceptable.
This entire debate has no reason to exist since the constitution is very clear on the topic. There is no wiggle room that exists. Yes, I'm not willing to give in one little bit on our rights. Cry if you want about it.
Only in your imagination is the constitution that clear on the topic.
In fact, the idea of the individual right of ownership of firearms wasn't even established until five years ago.... because, the constitution isn't that clear on the subject. Let's start with the notion that 'infringement' does mean unlimited. Heller v DC was the landmark case that established gun ownership as an individual right AND explicitly stated that "...the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
Fine to argue your opinion on this... but to state the Constitution is "very clear on this topic" is an idea that lives in the forest between ignorance and "disingenuousness."