- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 37,056
- Reaction score
- 18,261
- Location
- Greater Boston Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Maybe you should worry more about how you spend your own time and less about how I spend mine.But if you would really like to waste your time on that crock of nonsense then the pure and simple fact that there are numerous historians, judges, and legal scholars who know the constitution and history like the back of their hands and yet still radically disagree on meanings and intentions proves you to be 100% wrong on this point too.
Your own personal biases clearly influence how you choose to read the constitution. The 2nd Amendment as a classic example is very clear to me that it is intended to apply to a well-regulated militia which was essential at the time and completely unnecessary today. It is also very clear to me that the founder had never dreamed of Nuclear-Arms when they said the "right to bear arms".
As a result, the size and destructive power of "arms" the founders intended individuals to own are entirely up to anyone's guess and cannot be proven definitively.
I accept the assertion there isn't uniform agreement on what the original intent of many Constitutional passages mean. That's okay. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, there is all the difference in the world between making an honest attempt at identifying intent and willfully ignoring it in order to legislate from the bench. IMO, you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.