You wasted all those words to say "the constitution doesn't specify if it should be interpreted in a literalist fashion, or according to changing contemporary language and understanding, and further leaves much unsaid about the parameters of the right it purports to protect" which was exactly my point from the beginning.
The constitution can't simultaneously be clear enough and omit everything you just said, among many many other omissions. It's a legal document intended to last for centuries or perhaps perpetually, these issues simply HAVE to be addressed, and they were not. It's not impossible to do, and by the time of the founding fathers, others had already successfully drafted legal documents that remained in use for centuries.
If you think my posts are "anti 2A" you're a fucking illiterate retard, go back to reddit. I am posting in support the God given right to bear arms, and the way we support that right down through the centuries is by clearly codifying it into constitutional law, exactly as the founding fathers didn't do.
Go read the Canadian whatever-it-is. THAT'S vaguely written. It reads like Trudeau himself wrote it.
See, I don't think you even understand the issues here. In fact, the Canadian Charter is very clear, it says right at the beginning that it's NOT to be interpreted in a literalist fashion. It's a shit document for protecting rights, for the same reason as the US constitution does a shit job protecting your rights: it didn't specify literalist interpretation.
“Logic doesn’t work on you” says the guy who insists the wording is good even as he lives in a world where it isn’t, and who gets upset at anyone who suggests improvement.
You wasted all those words to say "the constitution doesn't specify if it should be interpreted in a literalist fashion, or according to changing contemporary language and understanding, and further leaves much unsaid about the parameters of the right it purports to protect" which was exactly my point from the beginning.
The constitution can't simultaneously be clear enough and omit everything you just said, among many many other omissions. It's a legal document intended to last for centuries or perhaps perpetually, these issues simply HAVE to be addressed, and they were not. It's not impossible to do, and by the time of the founding fathers, others had already successfully drafted legal documents that remained in use for centuries.
If you think my posts are "anti 2A" you're a fucking illiterate retard, go back to reddit. I am posting in support the God given right to bear arms, and the way we support that right down through the centuries is by clearly codifying it into constitutional law, exactly as the founding fathers didn't do.
See, I don't think you even understand the issues here. In fact, the Canadian Charter is very clear, it says right at the beginning that it's NOT to be interpreted in a literalist fashion. It's a shit document for protecting rights, for the same reason as the US constitution does a shit job protecting your rights: it didn't specify literalist interpretation.
You're right. I should have stopped at "Shall not be infringed". It seems logic doesn't work on you.
“Logic doesn’t work on you” says the guy who insists the wording is good even as he lives in a world where it isn’t, and who gets upset at anyone who suggests improvement.