Dangerousman wrote:The problem is that you assert much and support none of it with argumentation.
Sure I did, you just don't want to go back and read it.
Dangerousman wrote:I do not hold the 2nd Amendment to be biblical. The Bible I would encourage everyone to question and doubt. And you can disagree with the 2nd Amendment too if you wish, but you need to say why.
I did. Very clearly. Again, it's all here, all you have to do is read.
Dangerousman wrote:You can't just say "any reasonable person will agree" with you. Bullshit, reasonable people have reasons to believe something, not just your unsupported conclusions.
Sure I can; reasonable people use reason to come to beliefs. Pro-gunners use desire rather than reason to find their conclusions, that is unreasonable.
Dangerousman wrote:My "questionable" interpretations of the 2nd Amend. seem to be support largely by the Supreme Court. So it is your interpretation that seems off.
The Supreme Court is wrong too, despite Heller (another set of ideas that pro-gunners completely
Dangerousman wrote:You think vehicles are more heavily regulated? That's pretty funny. 16 year olds are bringing cars onto school grounds by the millions.
This is so silly it doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll humor you: drivers are licensed, cars are registered, safety checked, pollution checked, and carry an entire set of laws regulating the use of cars and the behavior of drivers, while actually operating a vehicle as well as while away from the vehicle. Please, explain how guns are comparatively regulated.How about answering a direct question, directly: do you object to repealing the Second Amendment with an amendment addressing today's needs and concerns regarding guns in the plain language of today? If so, why?