The ONLY way it could be any clearer is by rewording it thus:
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That changes no meaning at all from the original and is clear as day. It took me 0.3 nanoseconds to think of it that way based on the original. Anyone who tries to say the 2nd amendment is unclear is either lying to themselves more than to you, or doesn't understand English.
Anyone who says it’s sufficiently clear has somehow missed how watered down it has become, and doesn’t understand that laws aren’t attacked by friendly laymen but by hostile lawyers. There are ways to make airtight documents that stand the test of time, venetian merchant law does very well at this, as did English common law until recently (today’s judges make a mockery of the institution, but on purpose).
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. You insist the founding fathers' wording is sufficiently clear, despite living in a world when their supposedly clear statements have been perverted by hostile lawyers. Further, anyone who points out that this has happened, and points out that, as compared to similar legal documents intended to last for centuries, the 2A is written unclearly, is one of those hostile lawyers.
Is that about right?
If relativism has no place in the constitution, the constitution should have said so, i.e., should have clarified that point. If you can't see why such a clarification is necessary for a law intended to last for centuries or longer, YOU should not be taking part in this discussion.
The ONLY way it could be any clearer is by rewording it thus:
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That changes no meaning at all from the original and is clear as day. It took me 0.3 nanoseconds to think of it that way based on the original. Anyone who tries to say the 2nd amendment is unclear is either lying to themselves more than to you, or doesn't understand English.
Anyone who says it’s sufficiently clear has somehow missed how watered down it has become, and doesn’t understand that laws aren’t attacked by friendly laymen but by hostile lawyers. There are ways to make airtight documents that stand the test of time, venetian merchant law does very well at this, as did English common law until recently (today’s judges make a mockery of the institution, but on purpose).
So are you a "hostile lawyer" or are you just making excuses for them?
Relativism has no part in this discussion.
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. You insist the founding fathers' wording is sufficiently clear, despite living in a world when their supposedly clear statements have been perverted by hostile lawyers. Further, anyone who points out that this has happened, and points out that, as compared to similar legal documents intended to last for centuries, the 2A is written unclearly, is one of those hostile lawyers.
Is that about right?
If relativism has no place in the constitution, the constitution should have said so, i.e., should have clarified that point. If you can't see why such a clarification is necessary for a law intended to last for centuries or longer, YOU should not be taking part in this discussion.
LMAO "should have said so"
Because relatavism is your default it is not possible to reason with you. This also makes you a liar, just like those "hostile lawyers".
Let me know when you have decided to make truth your priority instead, then we will be able to talk.