This type of "thinking" is one of the reasons professional requirements documents are moving their language to MUST instead of SHALL for requirement descriptions.
All because people can't understand how language was used when it was originally written. I don't think "shall" is ambiguous at all in a requirement, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.
Maybe this is a backdoor way to weaken the 2nd Amendment even more, "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean we can't infringe, it just means we're not supposed to, but we'll do it anyways.
This type of "thinking" is one of the reasons professional requirements documents are moving their language to MUST instead of SHALL for requirement descriptions.
All because people can't understand how language was used when it was originally written. I don't think "shall" is ambiguous at all in a requirement, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.
Maybe this is a backdoor way to weaken the 2nd Amendment even more, "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean we can't infringe, it just means we're not supposed to, but we'll do it anyways.