Since you asked as nicely as I'd expect...
Quote:
|
All that said, I think I've pointed out that there are constitutional contentions on both sides of most of these issues. Each side thinks they're right and neither really has the place to say the other is wrong and dismiss it.
|
This may sound reasonable to the untrained eye but I'm not so easily fooled. You see, this claim contains a glaring flaw.
The constitution was created to establish a set of standards that the government is assigned to enforce. Thus the concept of the rule of law. This is intended to keep the peace while preventing the government from exceeding their role. You claim that all interpretations are equal when discerning what the constitution means? Utter nonsense and this is why: If we go by that logic, we can make the constitution mean anything we want to. There's the flaw.
A document that can mean anything, means nothing and is thus worthless.
There's no two ways about the bit about the right to bear arms, it is as clear as crystal: Government can't disarm the public. Period!
The bit about free speech? Very clear too. People have the right to speak their mind and nobody gets a say otherwise.
You have a right to engage in fair trade with anyone you choose, whenever you choose and in what manner you choose. Nobody gets to veto it.
It's as simple as ABC and clear as a bell. Sneaking in alternate takes on it is dishonest and really quite vile when you get right down to it. So spare me the moral high ground nonsense because you're doing nothing more than making excuses for the freedom hating weasels.
I know you won't but if anyone reading this is interested in learning more about the constitution, I highly recommend this lecture series
The second part talks about interprating the constitution. Very informative