We’ll see I went to law school and was a law review editor and passed a couple bar exams and practiced for years and years.
You read a blog post and watched some YouTube videos made by other people with no relevant education or experience.
Find me one usage of the phrase “bear arms” prior to 1776 outside of a clearly military context, that refers instead of an individual right, and I’ll drop it right now and forever.
There’s plenty of historical context to support the citizen’s right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers from the 1780s, but that doesn’t meet your arbitrary criteria of the year of Independence.
You make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of others. That’s usually not wise.
This is lame and a waste of my time, so I will conclude by saying the Supreme Court has spoken on this matter and their opinions outrank everyone else’s. Nothing you can do about your dumb opinion that our Rights are based on “lies” but continue to be mad about their existence I reckon.
Maybe I’ll argue the appeal of the one that gets the Court to throw out Heller and Bruen, or some other case to hold you numbnutses responsible.
I agree the date I chose is arbitrary. However, it is the date from which all originalism and textualism springs, as far as substantive constitutional rights. It is the originalists and textualists that read an individual right into a sentence that does not clearly have one.
We’ll see I went to law school and was a law review editor and passed a couple bar exams and practiced for years and years.
You read a blog post and watched some YouTube videos made by other people with no relevant education or experience.
Find me one usage of the phrase “bear arms” prior to 1776 outside of a clearly military context, that refers instead of an individual right, and I’ll drop it right now and forever.
There’s plenty of historical context to support the citizen’s right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers from the 1780s, but that doesn’t meet your arbitrary criteria of the year of Independence.
You make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of others. That’s usually not wise.
This is lame and a waste of my time, so I will conclude by saying the Supreme Court has spoken on this matter and their opinions outrank everyone else’s. Nothing you can do about your dumb opinion that our Rights are based on “lies” but continue to be mad about their existence I reckon.
Maybe I’ll argue the appeal of the one that gets the Court to throw out Heller and Bruen, or some other case to hold you numbnutses responsible.
I agree the date I chose is arbitrary. However, it is the date from which all originalism and textualism springs, as far as substantive constitutional rights. It is the originalists and textualists that read an individual right into a sentence that does not clearly have one.