It is difficult to imagine that one could butcher the meaning of the 2nd as badly as you just did, but somehow you managed it.
The 2nd, pal, has NOTHING to do with sticks or stones or knives or forks. It is written SOLELY with the use of weapons. “Bear arms” did not mean “throwing rocks”. It was also written in the context of the militia, hence the term “bear arms”. That’s also why Madison included a conscientious objector clause. He also needed the votes from the powerful Quaker block for ratification.
How you lept from the intent of the 2nd to asking the government for permission to defend yourself is beyond comprehension. Just an incoherent babble.
Infringement vs abridgement?
You abridge a book, pal. If you think abridge means limit, that is identical to infringe. Play whatever incoherent word games you want. Your argument is still babble.
Your wording about free speech is so incoherent, it’s impossible to respond.
What you made clear is your massive ignorance of the 2nd. It is EXACTLY what it says. The right to bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less.
Stop while you’re behind.
Bookmarks