The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a challenge to a federal ban on gun "bump stocks" in a case that could affect thousands of gun-owning Americans.
Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.
The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?
I recommend you read the thread if you are confused about the discussion.
We weren’t discussing a political process. We were discussing your headcannon of the 2nd amendment and how it aligns perfectly with the stance of a violent fascist.
I think the 2nd amendment was poorly written. I’ve read on it extensively and I don’t think it conveys the idea behind it. I think since the courts have further muddled the topic.
THE LAW
Lmao did you bring the rest of the circus with you?
Repeating “you’re making no sense” is a poor form of coping since you can’t address things people actually said.
Sounds like we are in agreement that the amendment is able to be changed to be relevant to modern interpretations.
Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.
The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You mean, you have an idea in your head that you think should be enforced on everybody despite it not being democratically placed.
The word for that is fascist. And it just so happens to be the right to deadly violence lmao.
Irony is dead.
deleted by creator
And none of that applies to thoughts living in your head. You want to enforce your beliefs on everybody without any government process.
Those beliefs is in regards to your right to deadly violence.
You are a violent fascist who uses linguistics on democracy and constitutional republic to dismiss the violence you are advocating.
deleted by creator
I recommend you read the thread if you are confused about the discussion.
We weren’t discussing a political process. We were discussing your headcannon of the 2nd amendment and how it aligns perfectly with the stance of a violent fascist.
deleted by creator
THE LAW
Lmao did you bring the rest of the circus with you?
Repeating “you’re making no sense” is a poor form of coping since you can’t address things people actually said.
Man, I can’t get over you flip-flopping right here.
You literally chimed in to insist upon a modern interpretation, then immediately said nobody else should do so.
Conservatives are inherently incapable of honest debate.
deleted by creator
You’re fine with the next court updating these decisions, too, right?
What a desperate attempt to leap from topic to topic to hide from the truth of what you advocated for.
Sad.
deleted by creator
Cool.