JerBla wrote:I agree, Im not an english major, I failed all my liturature classes. But anyway, I heard somewhere or read something about the way the writting was back then compaired to now. It had something to do with an Old English type of style. Puncuations and Capitalizations held different meanings. I can see where this would get confusing, but come on enough is enough. Make the desition that we have the right to arms and be done. How much longer does this have to go on?!!!!!!! Nowhere in there does it say you have to have them. So if you dont want them then dont get them. But dont make it harder for those that want the safty/security you get from owning one. I use my rifles for hunting, if they took them away then i wont be able to go hunting (no im not using a bow and arrow, that not my kind of thing) then their will be an over population of animals in the area. Anyway, Ive talked to others at my job about this and got some interesting opinions. The best was "we'll be able to keep firearms no problem. But it doesnt say anything about them taking or limiting ammo for those guns." I would have never thought of that.
In my opinion, anyone who starts to "read into" the Constitution like that is actively seeking to destroy this country. The CONUS is not open to extensive interpretation. It is not a living document, IMO. As written, it is perfectly capable of serving us for another thousand years if not eternity. Why? Because it only addresses basic needs and services in a broad sense, and that serves to accurately apply to the federal government for all time. Any specific requirements that apply to a specific time period for specific needs are supposed to be presided over by the STATES and the PEOPLE. You want to regulate ammunition/firearms? Go ahead! Do it via the state government. Let the states decide for themselves what their own personal firearms laws will be. This lets a more specific range of people decide for themselves what laws will best govern them.
Saying that "Oh, the 2A doesn't say anything about ammo" is just as stupid as saying that the freedom of speech doesn't apply to letters or to typing on the internet because they're not "speech" because you're not speaking. The Founders just assumed that people would know that the 2A included firearms as well as everything needed to ensure their proper function. If you restrict ammo, you may as well say that cleaning supplies or spare parts should be restricted, or that aftermarket accessories, scopes, red dot sights, ACOGs, night sights, etc. should be outlawed. It's ridiculous and stupid.
If you have that conversation with your co-workers again and they say that the CONUS is a "living document" or that it can be interpreted very specifically, then turn other amendments that they use every day around on them. Like I said, freedom of speech, specifically, doesn't say freedom of writing. I'm sure that there are other ways of twisting the other amendments. They just don't give a damn about the 2A because they either do not use it or they are conditioned to be sheeple. Either way, they are doing a disservice to their country, you and your children, and me and my family. They are also an embarrassment to us U.S. citizens who actually have a clue as to what our Constitution says and why the Bill of Rights was made.
