New Anti- Strategy...
I was thinking about this. Many of the antis are trying to get the 2A re-interpreted so that the word "people" refers to a collective. Wouldn't it be easier to just limit the definition of the word "arm" to the following?
arm (n) - a human limb; technically the part of the superior limb between the shoulder and the elbow but commonly used to refer to the whole superior limb
That way, they could still get what they want without any seeming violations of that pesky Constitution.
Just a thought, but then you might have to further ammend the Constitution to reflect the right to keep and bear legs and other common appendages as well.
I doubt they would do that. They want to seem "reasonable".
Beware the hypocrites. Let them be, let them confuse themselves. The American public should declare them incompetent. No more silly games.
The new strategy is now concentrating on the ammunition itself with many states suddenly introducing "serialized ammunition" legislation, limiting ammo buy quantities and time periods.
They've figured out PDQ that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is going to wind up decimating the D.C. gun ban this June when it finally issues it's ruling and have already adjusted their tactics. They figure you can have all the guns you want, but you can't do jack with them if you can't get ammo.
The anti-RIGHTS folks have been saying for decades that the 2nd Amendment only applies to members of a militia, it's nothing new.
But the "arms" definition would be funny. They'd need to change corpse mutilation laws for that.
No no no! You see the real issue is "bear". That was mis-spelled! What they meant was "bare". That just means the government can not require you to wear long sleeved shirts or cut your arms off! Or if they do cut them off they have to give them back to you. The second amendment guarantees people the right to wear tank tops!:gah:
I thought it meant something about arming bears...:blink:
Originally Posted by mcp1810