>
Were that the case, we wouldn’t have gun control laws.
>
Correct, we SHOULDN’T have ‘em. Either the Constitution is THE supreme law of the land or you’re conceding we’re a ruled under laws of men.
>
But we do, because persuasive arguments are made
those must be cut down individually & preemptively,
>
‘Persuasive’ has ZERO to do w/ the Constitutionality. The words, and their original context, MEAN something (and easy enough to research/find what the ‘something’ IS).
You’re making the same argument vs. re-instituting slavery, “Well, they HAD (a) good point(s)...”.
>
Winning is more than just being right.
>
We’ll agree to disagree here.
I’ve been familiar with your idealism for decades.
It hasn’t gotten us anywhere.
Pragmatic legal assaults on every trick used to undermine RKBA has.
Yes, “shall not be infringed” should be enough. It isn’t.