“You keep sidestepping that”
i’m not side stepping anything
“1700’s I don’t believe the right to own slaves is enshrined in the constitution”
Well it didnt say there was a right to own slaves per se (neither does it says there is right ot own guns) but yes the constitution made references to slaves (3/5th compromise in Article 1), thus allowing their existence
IT took a constitutional amendment to change it
“As to your contention that the amendment reefers to a militia and not individuals, that is a debate among constitutional “scholars ” so it’s certainly not going to be a winning argument.”
i’m not sure what you mean. You grant that it is a debate. It isnt just scholars of course justices of the supreme court are divided as well. Warren Byrger a conservative called the idea that 2nd amendment applies to an indivdual a “fraud” The supreme court can theoretically overrule heller
I’m not sure what argument you think I’m trying to win.
The bottom line is the 2nd amendment is changeable (which you agree) or reinterpret-able (which you agree with too “debate among constitutional “scholars ”” )
So arguing that we cant do anything because of the second amendment is wrong.
Again if arguing that you don’t want to do anything because you think the gun deaths are worth it for the right to carry guns DOES make sense, and earlier you indicated that, but you keep jumping back to this silly point and I’m not quite sure why it is giving you so much trouble.
“That’s correct. That’s why I keep saying change the amendment and then I would not argue.”
Ah but I need you there with me at my side Uibiquitin and KY just like in the good old days, I can’t do it alone.
So are you in?
And if your not in, thats ok! but dont keep blaming the second amendment, It is dishonest t o say which is what you are saying (though not verbatim) “We cant do anything about guns because of the second amendment and lets not do anything about the second amendment because reasons”