It may well be broken, but it is their system. But prior to the SC balance being reversed, how many of the marching lunatics do you think were against the system as a whole? SC rocks when it supports R v W, but according to these people, the system is broken when that interpretation is reversed.
And that argument is exceedingly subjective and repeated by vast segments of the heavy left across the globe. I don't think that group is capable of isolating the simplicity of what actually happened here and separating it from their personal views. I look at this decision and say, 'well, that makes sense in terms of interpreting that particular constitutional right'. I don't see how so many can be seen as the SC banning abortion themselves. If you're so passionate about an issue, surely you ensure you have some actual knowledge of the mechanics that surround it.
And as posted yesterday, I can't see how the SC interpreted the NY carry matter the way they did. I'm no lawyer, but a guiding principle is what would a reasonable person conclude. That amendment to me is very clear. It provides protection for citizens who use weapons as part of an organised militia with the purpose of defending the country from alien attack. There's a few arguments in and around that, but I think it's beyond doubt that wandering around with a concealed firearm is a long way from the original intent of that right. Arguing about types of weapons though, is infantile. As the tech from potential invaders develops, so does the arsenal enshrined within that right. If China presented on the shores, are these militia seriously expected to bear muskets in defence?
My question really surrounds the right to bear against the right to have awaiting that right. And then what was the intent of the day and whether in current times there remains any relevance. But arguing over single shot weapons and AR15s is miles off IMO.
