03-16-2018, 07:27 PM
(03-16-2018, 07:17 PM)F.U. Wrote: I think that since he was someone that was around in those days he would understand what the original intent was much better than anyone that is alive today.
Well, it's too bad that neither you nor I were there and can't time-travel back and ask him and the Founders about their intent directly, F.U.
He and they didn't define 'full possession' to mean unregulated and unrestricted access to any firearm imaginable then (or in the future).
You think or wish that's what they meant and you're therefore interpreting their intent accordingly. Your interpretation is not specified in their actual words.
That's fine and I'm not arguing with your interpretation. I'm simply pointing out that your interpretation of "full possession" is not the same as mine and not the same as the Supreme Court Justices (even the most conservative ones like Scalia) whose job it is to interpret and decide constitutionality of laws. That's the fact of the matter.