Is it?
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The debate has been going on since its ratification with people arguing what the actual implication is with the bent towards more rights for...
So it’s primary purpose is to shoot. To inflict harm on something.
Someone could make the choice to kill me with a spoon potentially but that’s not it’s primary purpose.
Someone could make the choice to hit me with a car but it’s not the car’s primary purpose.
You can shoot hogs and deer...
I’m all for common sense on both issues.
More border security but with an easier path to legal entry and citizenship.
Own all the guns you want but bullets cost an arm and a leg unless you’re at a range.
while I can see an argument that would suggest otherwise, the Big Macs sole purpose isn’t to kill. I mean there is SOME nutritional value albeit very little. On the other hand, a large magazine weapon has no other purpose than to kill people quickly