Comment: It doesn't define gun...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Which part of the 2nd (see in situ)

It doesn't define gun...

That's the whole point of my essay. The constitution is a piece of paper and in almost no way does it dictate the laws of our country anymore. It's horribly flawed and the whole second amendment is vague at best. I'm a libertarian through and through; but when it comes to the right to bear arms, what is the law? It's whatever we decide it to be. The court of public opinion is what matters now.

YOu say:

"In my interpretation, "arms" refers to whatever arms of the day."

So in your interpretation can I make a drone and put bombs on it? Use it for self defense if I morally interpret that the situation needs my drone for that self defense.

Its nonsense. Anytime anyone says to me, "my interpretation is such and such." I know that person is making it up. There's no substance to the argument based in any kind of certainty. That's why my essay says the most important thing we can do is shift public opinion. The constitutional argument doesn't work because nobody cares anymore. Barrack Obama was a constitutional scholar, and he does what he interprets the constitution to say. Guess what, he doesn't see eye to eye with you.

You make an interpretation, he makes an interpretation, which one of you is right? Nobody, both of you, one of you, it's whatever I interpret.

Liberty is simple, if you want to write it down it goes something like this. "Do what you want, except infringe on other people's ability to do what they want." Done. But wait, I bet people can interpret that in different ways. That's why the ONLY thing that matters is your ability to persuade others. You got to plant seeds, and nonviolent protest that educate others is that ONLY way. Killing people is the stupid man's protest.