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?
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?