Quote Originally Posted by Bailey Guns View Post
What legal interpretation is that? I'm pretty sure the whole thing has been settled by the Constitution, McDonald v Chicago and Heller v DC. I don't think it's being interpreted incorrectly by those that infringe on the 2A rights of citizens, it's just that, so far, they've been able to get away with it without much worry of any sort of consequences for their actions. They infringe upon our 2A rights because they don't like the 2A.

(I'm pretty sure you meant interpretation...but interpenetration does seem more like what's going on in terms of what the .gov is doing to citizens! I may have to steal that word and start using it more often.)


2A will be before the High Court again. The issues with its interpretation will last as long as our Constitution. If it is settled (in the way society understands it) then how does the government get away with the above situation? I think the problem is is that society believes it to be up for interpretation. It would be nice if society believed the law the way it is written, but the above example, I think, proves we have a long way to go.

Yea the is a cool word.