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?
Yes that certainly helps your case. Wanna call me a retard? Ok, let's take a closer look at what you said.
"...statements have been perverted by hostile laywers..."
Full stop. DID WHAT now? Perverted the statement? So they perverted the statement, and now the statement stands perverted. Why does it stand perverted? We know the original statement and we know the perverted version. Why do we accept the perverted version over the original? Also, who is to blame for this perversion? The original author? The hostile lawyers? The people who accepted the perversion?
People have perverted the unpervertable from the beginning. Next you'll tell me the Bible should have clarified its points.
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.
Yes that certainly helps your case. Wanna call me a retard? Ok, let's take a closer look at what you said.
"...statements have been perverted by hostile laywers..."
Full stop. DID WHAT now? Perverted the statement? So they perverted the statement, and now the statement stands perverted. Why does it stand perverted? We know the original statement and we know the perverted version. Why do we accept the perverted version over the original? Also, who is to blame for this perversion? The original author? The hostile lawyers? The people who accepted the perversion?
People have perverted the unpervertable from the beginning. Next you'll tell me the Bible should have clarified its points.
Retard.