Absolutely based.
Absolutely based
Nicholas Morales
Lincoln Hill
kek
Gavin Baker
Based on what?
William Baker
Good ole Stonetoss
Jason Torres
>Ignore constitutional discussion revolve on the nature of what shall not be infringed
But of course bad faith is based and nuance is for fags
Jordan Thompson
Not to mention that "shall not be infringed" does have its limits. Do babies have the right to bear arms? Babies are people too. How about convicted criminals? And so on and so forth. It's really not clear-cut.
Brayden Sanders
Slavery as punishment
What did they mean by it?
Logan Murphy
"What dis they mean by this"
I CLAPPED I CLAPPED WHEN I RECOGNIZED THE 4CHIN MAYMAY
I KNOW WHAT THAT IS
Jacob Jackson
Who is this, Yas Forums guy?
Brayden Perez
There isn't one. Only liars pretending they can't read what the amendment says.
The wording is clear, the intention is clear, the historic precedent is clear. There has never been any doubt about what the amendment means.
>Do babies have the right to bear arms? Babies are people too. How about convicted criminals?
There is no ambiguity in the phrase, "shall not be infringed"
It doesn't make an exclusion for babies or criminals. Making an exclusion for criminals is fucking stupid, makes the entire idea of a right pointless if you lose it the moment you disobey the government.