Not "end of discussion" at all. A Constitutional Amendment can override a Court decision... changing the Constitution so that whatever the issue is... becomes Constitutional It's an amazingly sensible system. Brilliant folks those Founders fellas.
The Preamble? LOL... back in my day we all had to memorize it... and we started the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. We memorized that too.
The idiom is "keep and bear arms". And what it means to me is irrelevant. What it meant to the framers is what is relevant. Here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ All bases are covered. So don't think you're going to bring anything new to this debate.
so in your view-a government that was prevented from infringing of the right of citizens to KEEP arms, could constitutionally ban those same citizens from OWNING arms what a web we weave........
You quoted the OP. For I second I thought that you had finally read it. Alas! Your response shows that you quoted it, but didn't read it. The point is simple. So I'm sure that, if you really really tried hard enough, even you would understand it. It boils down to this: The 2nd A does not grant, limit, confer, affirm... or in ANY way address the sale or ownership of firearms. The above is just one line: try to read it a few times, and see if you can grasp it. And if you want to know how we know this, reading the WHOLE OP is necessary.
I disagree with you, but what we can agree on is the fact that the 2nd amendment grants congress zero legislative power.
LOL, I love this comedy show. the second amendment PREVENTS the federal government from interfering-in any way-with the ability of private citizens-acting in their private capacity-from using, keeping, bearing, owning selling, painting, modifying carrying etc arms. PERIOD
All I know is that (as linguists and historians have PROVEN) the 2nd A doesn't address, in any way, not to confer, not to affirm, not to restrict, ... some "right" to own firearms. And even law experts (like you claim to be) can't rebut their arguments. So I guess they must be right.
I see. So, SINCE you can't rebut what I DO say, your tactic is to make up nonsense that I DIDN'T say, so you can rebut THAT instead. Good luck with that!
It says the “right of the people”, so your contention that it has nothing to do with individual rights is wrong.
This statement of yours is incorrect because the amendment refers to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
You said "It says the “right of the people”, so your contention that it has nothing to do with individual rights is wrong." QUOTE where I said that it has nothing to do with individual rightS Or amend your statement. The most accurate way we can know if a poster is serious is when they CORRECT their misstatements.
Here is a quote of what you wrote: This is obviously untrue, because the 2nd amendment does indeed address the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
we have destroyed their arguments. the government was never given any power to do so, and if the government cannot prevent you from keeping and bearing arms, it cannot prevent you from owning arms. what case law supports your alleged experts
Ok. You don't expect to be taken seriously. Bottom line I have NEVER said that it involves NO individual rights. I'll focus on posters who want to be taken seriously.
You said “Bottom line: an individual right to own weapons was simply not addressed in the 2nd A”, which is incorrect because it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
