- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why are you focusing on the trivial and the obscure which was clearly identified as LITTLE USED and ignoring the mainstream meaning which is far more definitive?
Every judge for the last 200 plus years who has ever upheld a law restricting guns agrees with my position that you can limit such things as long as you still allow people to keep and bear arms.
And that is a legion of scholars and judges.
Now your are being purposely deceptive about your position. Your position has been that as long as long as one is not disarmed by the government, then the government is obeying the 2nd amendment. This position of your relies upon your "odd" interpretation of the word infringed, and based upon this interpretation, the only prohibited infringement would be a complete ban on all arms.
This is a preposterous position that would allow a ban on all firearms except black powder muzzle loading flintlocks.
As I said before, I might give your ridiculous interpretation some passing consideration if you can provide any constitutional scholars who support this "anything but a complete ban is constitutional" line of thinking.