llovejim
Current Champion
no, you are the one parsing words to the nth degree- like this doozy-If you understand the English language and know how to read it, then it's clearly an explanation, not a condition. Try again. There is nothing that says the explanation should be met. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is completely clear. Your claim that it says shall not be infringed, but it can be infringed, is lame.
If you want limits on what people can have, then do it the right way. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. 50%+1 or worse, 5/9 are not in the Constitution.
Also, just because you have a right to something doesn't mean you can actually do it. Monty Python explained this phenomenon.
You have a right to an F-16. Now try to go buy one ... Freedom to bear arms does not say it's government's job to arm you or sell you weapons.
You have a right to an F-16. Now try to go buy one ... Freedom to bear arms does not say it's government's job to arm you or sell you weapons.
do you seriously believe if I had the money, and the inclination, I could buy an f-16, fully operational with all arms locked and loaded, all i needed to do was show my credit card? that is hilariously stupid!! the government does not manufacture F-16's. they just buy the shit out of them. i would love for some billionaire to try to buy one and when turned down, say it is his constitutional right, and then see him being carted away to some room for observation.