would democrats accept this 2A compromise

[Yellowhammer]

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

[Yellowhammer]

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

[Yellowhammer]

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.

Is it also up to them to determine what forms of speech the 1st amendment can apply to? Does free speech not exist on television or the internet because they didn't exist in 1787?