Yes, but the corrupt judicial branch wrote the law, so...
I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer.
Sources, please...
Yes, but the corrupt judicial branch wrote the law, so...
I said that. I think the Supreme Court found those incorrectly.
17-45 covers all American males regardless of state.
or that it's only a militia right.
Yes, but those restrictions were not legal.
I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer.
If the Supreme court came to a different conclusion from your conclusion (which I agree is sensible) then the wording is ambiguous isn't it?
That is certainly ambiguous.
They were certainly found to be legal by the supreme court at one point - and another amendment had to be passed to get rid of them for good.