“Ubiq I call it sidestepping because until this post you seemed to advocate laws that ignore the second amendment.”
no of course not. The only law ii’m advocated for in this thread is universal background checks which already exist in sa few states. These are not considered unconstitutional (though of course that can change) .
and Of course the government shouldn’t ignore the 2nd amendment . I agree compleltly with this line of yours “A government must follow. The laws it operates under. That is imperative.” My reply though, was “Changing silly policies is not “A government that does not follow its own laws ”They are called amendment s it is a “change” we can change it again.”
“Some say it allows armed individuals others say not. I don’t believe in today’s day and climate you will ever get a public consensus on that.”
We dont need a “public consensus” when Heller was decided 4/9 interpreted correctly. We just need it to come up again when have less activist judges on the bench trying to legislate from the bench.
“So you can’t convince those against gun control, that it’s not in the amendment. ”
Of course not, I’m not tryin g too. I’m trying to convince you that saying there is nothing that we can do because of the second amendment is wrong .
“Personally I would NOT. like to see it changed.”
Beseder. So stand up and say that. don’t blame the second amendment.
Lets put it another way,
Scenario 1) if John roberts calls you and says , “Hey KY there is a case coming up tomorrow regarding expanding gun control, I’m just not sure how to vote what should I do?”
scenario 2) 2/3 of both chambers decide to limit the second amendment ot a “well regulated militia” wait that doesn’t work, they decide to get rid of it completely. 37 states voted to ratify it the tie breaking vote in the 38’th ( making 3/4 of the states) vote is yours. Would you vote to repeal?
Based on your answer “Personally I would NOT. like to see it changed.” I imagine you would vote not to change it.
thus it is dishonest for you to blame the second amendment. since even without it you still support gun deaths, I mean “rights” and given the option to amend it you wouldn’t.
I feel like I’m repeating myself more than usual. do you understand my point ? I’m concerned that your not since “until this post you seemed to advocate laws that ignore the second amendment.”