The thing basically says "Since we need a well-equipped militia to guarantee the security of our free state from tyrannical autocrats, every mofo can have as many guns as they want."
2A could have simply said this:
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, PARTS OR PIECES OF WEAPONRY, AMMUNITION, AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, LESSENED, MINIMIZED, ALTERED, NEGOTIATED, CHISELED AWAY, STOLEN, DIMINISHED, SHAPED, MODIFIED, REDUCED, OR CONDITIONED IN ANY MANNER, TO ANY DEGREE, BY ANY ENTITY WHATSOEVER.
Yeah, they love to twist the words into something they were never meant to be. The real key is to use terms that can't be twisted. For example tie it to something else. Define it clearly.
So for example you state that... citizens shall have access to weapons of the a similar or same ability and effectiveness to the standard issue weapon of any major military over the past ten years. In other words a weapon like the AR-15. Its pretty much the same as an M-4 minus the full auto. Its exactly what we have a right too. My wording sux but you get the idea. The point is to future proof the wording.
In 100 years when standard issue military weapons becomes a phaser rifle with a 3 mega jew output blah blah blah... guess what We The People get to have? See how that works. And they can't delay you getting one by 50 years either. They have only 10 years.
So for example you state that... citizens shall have access to weapons of the a similar or same ability and effectiveness to the standard issue weapon of any major military over the past ten years.
In debates, focus on the practical, not the constitution. The common person doesn't understand law or care. Do you think cops should be the only ones who have guns? Are cops always trustworthy and reliable? Do governments ever hurt their own citizens?
Regulated in the 18th century meant equipped.
The thing basically says "Since we need a well-equipped militia to guarantee the security of our free state from tyrannical autocrats, every mofo can have as many guns as they want."
2A could have simply said this:
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, PARTS OR PIECES OF WEAPONRY, AMMUNITION, AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, LESSENED, MINIMIZED, ALTERED, NEGOTIATED, CHISELED AWAY, STOLEN, DIMINISHED, SHAPED, MODIFIED, REDUCED, OR CONDITIONED IN ANY MANNER, TO ANY DEGREE, BY ANY ENTITY WHATSOEVER.
Yeah, they love to twist the words into something they were never meant to be. The real key is to use terms that can't be twisted. For example tie it to something else. Define it clearly.
So for example you state that... citizens shall have access to weapons of the a similar or same ability and effectiveness to the standard issue weapon of any major military over the past ten years. In other words a weapon like the AR-15. Its pretty much the same as an M-4 minus the full auto. Its exactly what we have a right too. My wording sux but you get the idea. The point is to future proof the wording.
In 100 years when standard issue military weapons becomes a phaser rifle with a 3 mega jew output blah blah blah... guess what We The People get to have? See how that works. And they can't delay you getting one by 50 years either. They have only 10 years.
I didn't state that, but OK
This video does a great job explaining the 2nd A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieqt9nYekkw
why haven't we banned assault vehicles yet
#AssaultVaccines have killed more people in 1 year than all mass shootings in American history combined.
Outlaw #AssaultVaccines
In debates, focus on the practical, not the constitution. The common person doesn't understand law or care. Do you think cops should be the only ones who have guns? Are cops always trustworthy and reliable? Do governments ever hurt their own citizens?