(02-22-2022, 02:03 PM)p_rushing Wrote:

(02-22-2022, 10:42 AM)Norman Mushari Wrote: As a supporter of the 2nd, I still don't see where it says high capacity magazines are off the table.

I never understood how judges interpret the constitution to say that when people vote to get rid of high capacity mags, that the constitution protects those mags.  It doesn't say that.

Now go ahead and call me names that really don't describe me at all.

The right isn't defined because it was meant to give the people the ability to rise up and overthrow the government if needed. It really should be treated as the right to match what the government has. Now there are mass destruction weapons that weren't thought of then but the government should be afraid of the people. The people should not be afraid of the government.

Completely false.  The state constitutions that the 2nd amendment was cribbed from say "For defense of self and of the State."
I agree with the second amendment, but not at all with this recent and innovative interpretation.  Absolutely no one in 1789 was trying to plant seeds of another American revolution.  
They were trying to ensure that there would be a broad base of defense for the form of government they had just settled on at the cost of many of their friends' lives.

---