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.
That is the wrong way to write legal documents intended to remain in effect, unchanged, for centuries. Especially the part about writing it to be simple enough that the simple can comprehend them. It should be written with comprehensive logic covering all circumstances and avenues of legal attack, the whole thing should present practically as an airtight mathematical proof. People can write simple summaries for simple people afterwards.
All laws are supposed to be so simple that the simple can comprehend them,
Can you provide an example of a law that follows this principle you just made up, and that has remained effective through centuries?
The only legal documents that remain in effect, unchanged, for centuries are international treaties and they're NOT written as you propose.
and here you continue to split hairs... from the wrong dog no less
Seriously, I want to know, are you retarded? Do you think I'm arguing against the 2A?
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.
That is the wrong way to write legal documents intended to remain in effect, unchanged, for centuries. Especially the part about writing it to be simple enough that the simple can comprehend them. It should be written with comprehensive logic covering all circumstances and avenues of legal attack, the whole thing should present practically as an airtight mathematical proof. People can write simple summaries for simple people afterwards.
Can you provide an example of a law that follows this principle you just made up, and that has remained effective through centuries?
The only legal documents that remain in effect, unchanged, for centuries are international treaties and they're NOT written as you propose.
Seriously, I want to know, are you retarded? Do you think I'm arguing against the 2A?
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.
Holy smokes, go back to reddit retard. You can't even read.