Not at all. In advocating a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment you would be willing to see guns placed into the hands of the criminally insane. That’s your advocacy by virtue of overstating things. Not hard to see. You’re right, it is not a slight overstatement. I only used that word in hopes of lessening the rancor with which you choose to address those with whom you disagree. Oh well. Keep raising that flag for the criminally insane.
” Not at all. In advocating a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment you would be willing to see guns placed into the hands of the criminally insane”
NOBODY “PLACES” guns into the hands of the criminally insane, but a criminal who is insane.
You are truly a piece of work.
You are defending a man/statement that would result in gun confiscation, then building a strawman about all or nothing interps and you expect something other than rancor.
A true 60%er if ever FR had one.
OK Yes or no. Do you believe Shall not be infringed means criminals/insane must be allowed have guns. Simple question. Yes or no.
Can you produce any example where American law has ever supported such a position going back to the Constitutional founding? Yes or no.