Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_ixz4tum wrote

Reply to comment by BurghPuppies in 27 Pennridge teachers deride planned cut to Social Studies requirement by HanSoloz

No, you are the one that wanted to limit the 2A to what was available 250 years ago. I was just pointing out the grade level of that weapon.

−9

BurghPuppies t1_iy0ebg5 wrote

No no no, I never said I wanted to limit anything. You were criticizing people on the left for always wanting to update things, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy by stating that unless you update bear arms to “today’s standards”, the only thing 2A would protect is muskets.

You can’t have it both ways; either the constitution and legal precedents are living breathing principles, or they’re not — We’re bound by their EXACT words. Which is it?

SPOILER ALERT: Your argument is screwed either way. Have a nice day : )

2

Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_iy0htc7 wrote

No, you thought you would be cute and failed miserable. The conversation was about individuals and you tweaked it into the constitution. I know you think your smart.

−1

BurghPuppies t1_iy0i6xt wrote

Smart enough to know “your” from “you’re”. And the difference between “miserable” and “miserably”.

Also, I was asking you, an “individual”, to choose one. And you couldn’t because that fence you’re sitting on is jammed up your butt.

1

Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_iy0jre6 wrote

No, spell checking means you're more intelligent, which isn't indicative of being smart.

I did post people's names but you were fixated on 2a.

1

BurghPuppies t1_iy0m142 wrote

Oh I saw names… I just didn’t see how removing history led to their downfall. And one you listed is still in power, so….

1

BurghPuppies t1_iy0makm wrote

And you still didn’t choose: update to “today’s standard” or allow people only to own muskets (the only arms protected by 2A)?

1

Advanced-Guard-4468 t1_iy0o5h5 wrote

No, the constitution just says arms. It doesn't reference what type.

0

BurghPuppies t1_iy0oqj4 wrote

And arms at the time were muskets. So, if you are against people applying “today’s standards”, that means we should apply the standards of when it was written. Therefore, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free state, the right of people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed.” Using the standard of the time, of course : )

See how that works?

Next will we be debating wearing clothes made of multiple fabrics, touching a dead pig, and working on the Sabbath? Can’t wait!

1