Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
I've posted references in depth that appeared in scholarly journals, mostly law journals. These references of course, support the only viable position re: the Second Amendment, the position I hold. Those favoring the "Collective rights" position, the one wherein you must be a militia member to have a gun and can only use it in that regard, have virtually no supporting documentation, and what little is available, again, is authored by anti-self defense lobbyists. Still, you've an opportunity to prove me wrong.
|
Prove you wrong? You're interpretation is one interpretation ,there's is another. That's because based on the fact it's a vague clause!
Quote:
|
If you'll just do the research of the opposing view, and post it here, we can get that in depth "opposing view" literature you've mentioned several times.
|
Why? As I've stated before, I am progun. I don't particularly care to argue from an anti-gun standpoint. I've outlined the opposing view that can be derived from this vague clause, from a states' militia viewpoint.
Any link provided that supports the other viewpoint will be construed as some "commie" link or something stupid by you anyway, dude. Even the American Bar Association is "leftist" to you now.
The content won't even be reviewed by you, so why bother? It's a waste of time with such a biased ego-driven person (with "superior" grammar no less LOL), over a VAGUE clause.