Can any PRO Gun-Control person on this forum name one Gun Control WIN in the last 3 years?

[beevul]

32. " What the Constitution clearly demands"

Wow. Just wow.

In a document, the purpose of which is to restrict government, you see your way fit to "interpret" a restriction on people. The very same people those restrictions on government are intended to protect the rights of. Like "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", for example. Right of the people, not "power of the government". The fact that the words "right of the people" are written there, makes crystal clear that they are not talking about bearing arms in the context of military service as it is today. That would be a power of government, you see. Rights are the opposite of powers, and at odds with them as such, in case you didn't know it.

"4 annoying words the gun advocates don't want to reckon with in meaningful terms"

We do reckon with them in meaningful terms. Just not meaningful terms you and your pro control ilk agree with.

The fact is, those words aren't annoying to us, they're annoying to YOU.

Annoying because they don't serve as a limiting factor like you wish they did.

It would be completely redundant for an amendment to be written that in essence said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of military service, shall not be infringed". "the government shall not infringe upon itself". Thats a hoot, it really is. Lets be plain, thats the road you'd like to take it down.

Even more ridiculous, is the notion of "the government shall not restrict itself" being written into a document whos SOUL purpose was to restrict federal government with protecting the rights of people as the intended goal of those restrictions.


The collective rights interpretation is dead. It was always dead.

It just hasn't sunk in for some folks with ideological blinders, yet.

Fortunately, thats not my problem.