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.
If you don't want people calling you "retard," read more carefully. I'm not supporting pilpul nor am I anti 2A, I'm simply telling you the world doesn't work the way you want it to. You can't write vague, brief statements and expect everyone to arrive at, never mind defend your interpretation. Excruciating detail and clarity is the solution, not made-up principles like "laws should be written so that dumb people can read them."
Why does it stand perverted?
Because it was written with insufficient clarity, such that it could be argued that it means multiple things, including the original meaning and other, perverted, meanings. You seem to think this is impossible, but I have news for you, it has already happened.
Why do we accept the perverted version over the original?
Because it wasn't specified in the Constitution how the words should be interpreted. That left the door open to "living tree" interpretation. You act like this is impossible, but I invite you to look around. It already happened!
Also, who is to blame for this perversion? The original author? The hostile lawyers? The people who accepted the perversion?
Who is to blame when you leave your trash can out and raccoons and black bears upend the can and make a mess on your driveway? Yes, sure, the raccoons and bears are to blame, they did it. But you are not blameless for leaving a free meal out in nature, knowing what would naturally follow.
If you're going to write a document that protects your rights now, and is intended to protect your descendants' rights forever more, you simply HAVE to write it anticipating hostile pilpul attacks. For some reason, this idea upsets you, even though the results of NOT doing so are plain for you to see.
People have perverted the unpervertable from the beginning
Therefore we should not make any attempt to prevent them doing so? I don't follow...
Next you'll tell me the Bible should have clarified its points.
Do you kill? Is our present interpretation, that needlessly killing animals for food, carelessly killing smaller creatures to farm and develop, killing in defence, killing when the state puts you in uniform and tells you to, etc., are okay, a perversion or the original meaning?
Do you steal? Did you never benefit from a service paid for by taxation, like roads or a military? Do you enjoy the use of products made with slave/stolen labour? Is our present interpretation in which these things are permitted in the spirit of the original meaning, or are they perversions?
Do you bear false witness against your neighbour? Did you ever click "accept" on a legal agreement between you and your fellow countrymen without reading it, or knowing you disagreed with its contents?
Do you think the laws God laid down for us are being observed? If not, perhaps the advice did not land. The author may be divine in nature, but its intended recipients are NOT.
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.
If you don't want people calling you "retard," read more carefully. I'm not supporting pilpul nor am I anti 2A, I'm simply telling you the world doesn't work the way you want it to. You can't write vague, brief statements and expect everyone to arrive at, never mind defend your interpretation. Excruciating detail and clarity is the solution, not made-up principles like "laws should be written so that dumb people can read them."
Because it was written with insufficient clarity, such that it could be argued that it means multiple things, including the original meaning and other, perverted, meanings. You seem to think this is impossible, but I have news for you, it has already happened.
Because it wasn't specified in the Constitution how the words should be interpreted. That left the door open to "living tree" interpretation. You act like this is impossible, but I invite you to look around. It already happened!
Who is to blame when you leave your trash can out and raccoons and black bears upend the can and make a mess on your driveway? Yes, sure, the raccoons and bears are to blame, they did it. But you are not blameless for leaving a free meal out in nature, knowing what would naturally follow.
If you're going to write a document that protects your rights now, and is intended to protect your descendants' rights forever more, you simply HAVE to write it anticipating hostile pilpul attacks. For some reason, this idea upsets you, even though the results of NOT doing so are plain for you to see.
Therefore we should not make any attempt to prevent them doing so? I don't follow...
Do you kill? Is our present interpretation, that needlessly killing animals for food, carelessly killing smaller creatures to farm and develop, killing in defence, killing when the state puts you in uniform and tells you to, etc., are okay, a perversion or the original meaning?
Do you steal? Did you never benefit from a service paid for by taxation, like roads or a military? Do you enjoy the use of products made with slave/stolen labour? Is our present interpretation in which these things are permitted in the spirit of the original meaning, or are they perversions?
Do you bear false witness against your neighbour? Did you ever click "accept" on a legal agreement between you and your fellow countrymen without reading it, or knowing you disagreed with its contents?
Do you think the laws God laid down for us are being observed? If not, perhaps the advice did not land. The author may be divine in nature, but its intended recipients are NOT.
LOLOLOLOL you don't even know the difference between kill and murder. Oh this is good stuff, please give me more.