When the 1st Amendment says "the people" is it talking about the same people that the 2nd Amendment is talking about when it says "the people" and same with the 4th Amendment?

I honestly don't know why you ask that question. Is "the people" equal to "the people"? seems like a pretty "HMMMM." question.

Like: "Why would you ask me this?"

Wow. Ok.

Who are "the people" that is referred to in the 1st Amendment?

Citizens.

Ok thanks. I agree

Citizens.

And who are "the people" in the 2nd?

Already answered.

I assume you knew what I was typing

Ok... and the same for the 4th, right?

Citizens.

cool

So here is my honest question... knowing that how do you say that we can prohibit felons from owning weapons... but the first and 4th Amendments protect them the exact same way

lol good call ImNotGas.

see?

i knew where he was going

I'm actually not against felons owning firearms.

1st Amendment doesn't care if you are a felon... neither does the 4th.... so why does the 2nd?

What is the LEGAL argument?

felons can get a restitution of rights

Actually they do. They lose a ton of rights.

Not just the second.

LOL... ok fair enough. But the Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment only applies to "law abiding, responsible" citizens....

So what is the legal argument?

Im also a rare breed of conservative who isnt against felons possessing firearms

Sure, where is that in the constitution?

Not to own a weapon... in some states than can get their right to vote back?

I'm a leftie Joe. :V

No, own a weapon too.

You're not tho

I am tho.

you are a liberal not a leftist

@ImNotGas, you just advanced to level 26!

I am too then

Its the Heller case @Joe Snow

We're talking about the constitution, not SCOTUS rulings.

Wow Joe... we agree on something

Lefty and democrat are not the same thing. Im not too young to remember a democrat party that loved america and believed in freedom

I guess I'll just keep being the *somehow* fash commie.

Super fash tankie boi.

LOL... ok and who interprets the Constitution?

Because I have laid out a very clear argument that the Supreme Court has reverse thing logic on this over the years