Look at you thinking a dependent clause has any effect on an absolute statement.
Printable View
You’re ignoring, again, where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Here is 135 pages of citations of prior court cases that also say they didn’t rewrite shit, but rather, followed court precedent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf
Seran we conservashits or toxic masculinity or whatever else is the MSNBC mean trendy PC word of the day…real men…we very much value and will preserve our God-given rights to be free & alive people in America. To do that we need firearms. It’s something you can’t understand. And that’s ok, because all you need to understand is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Last I checked, God didn't inform his disciples that people have the right to own firearms. God /did/ however state plainly that his is the only right to judge the moral turpitude of others. Our Constitution meanwhile also creates a separation of church and state, which means Neo-Conservative pushes to pass legislation enacting passages from the bible as law is a basic violation of our Constitution.
So I’ll go down to your level and let’s take God completely out of the equation.
Imagine this situation: A 5’4” 120 lbs single mom nurse is walking home alone from a late night double-shift in NYC when a 6’2” 225 lbs male knocks her to the ground with evil intentions to rape and murder this woman.
Does this woman have the right to defend herself? And if so, is that right granted to her by our government or does it go beyond that to something like survival & protection is simply natural to us as human beings? What kind of weapon gives this woman the best chance to survive such an encounter? And last, do you really think the woman in this situation should have to prove to the government her “special needs” and in reality be denied under any circumstances to carry such life-saving equipment?