I was in a friendly discussion and the individual firmly believes the constitution isn't about individuals at all.
He uses the language that well regulated militia .. not individuals..
Now , I am not educated enough to articulate this in a manner that needs to be said. I firmly believe it's an individual right..
I brought up the fact that the SC just affirmed it is .. he argued or stated he felt it was not the same.
Does anyone have a a logical path to discuss this and lend some credence to either side?
He uses the language that well regulated militia .. not individuals..
Now , I am not educated enough to articulate this in a manner that needs to be said. I firmly believe it's an individual right..
I brought up the fact that the SC just affirmed it is .. he argued or stated he felt it was not the same.
Does anyone have a a logical path to discuss this and lend some credence to either side?