You mean the thing that's up for interpretation and said interpretation has changed several times over the last two hundred and fifty years? Are you trying to say that there's only one correct way to read the Constitution?
dragonflyteaparty
joined 2 years ago
And you ignored their comment completely.
Your argument is basically "people who don't break the law are fine, so we shouldn't let people who do break the law ruin for the rest of us". Sounds like nuance, but it's not.
Then why is it more likely to die from a gunshot if you own a gun? Aren't guns supposed to make sure you don't die?
Except we have people arguing against registration. In my state all you have to do is be 21, not have a felony, and maybe pay child support and you're good. Have a gun.
No, actually. A gun's purpose is to maim or kill. "Self defense" is simply a phrase for "I will hurt you back more than you hurt me". It doesn't change the purpose of a gun. It would likely take decades, but we could absolutely lower the amount of guns the US has. People just think that's too hard and refuse to care that a household with a gun is more likely to get shot and die than a household without one.
How about a fine based on net worth?
Our old TV did that. It was a Hisense.
What is precisely unlimited about this? Should companies be able to keep whatever they want behind the curtain and we aren't allowed to ask what it is?
She was amazing in the real sense of that word.
My mother isn't even Christian and she does this. I blame Faux News.
Except the 2nd amendment wasn't always interpreted to mean that people can carry guns with no to very little restrictions. At the time guns had a one shot action. You couldn't shoot up a crowd and kill fifty people within a few seconds. The current interpretation of civilians owning and carrying guns during every day life is very recent.