Yea, that's why your missing Phill's point. The Supreme Court didn't use original intent when it came to Keller etc. That's because it's obvious the amendment is referring to a militia. Something that doesn't exist any longer.

Which means the Supreme Court conjured up an "inalienable right". Or rather they looked to later cases, and then projected back an inalienable right back onto the Constitution.

That doesn't invalidate the idea of having a gun for self defense is a positive good, but it does remove the idea that the Founders were omniscient when it came to knowing inalienable rights and such. After all slavery is in the document.

do you always agree with whatever the current opinion of the supreme court is? If not, what's your point?

No the Constitution doesn't say Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But the Decleration of Independence does of course. My mistake.

So in your mind I have no right to defense?

Why is it an odd standard? The main point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the people's right to defend themselves againt other person's, tyrannical governments, and foreign powers. Why should the people not have access to arms that are effective enough to let them do so?

Do you just not trust people in general? Or is it that you think the police and/or government should be solely responsible for defending the people? After all the police an government is made up by the people is it not? So you only trust those people.that are government affiliated with firearms?

And yet gun violence hasn't gone down since 98

Fair enough on most points. I never believed the founding fathers to be omniscient.

I do not believe the Supreme Court conjured up a right in Heller anymore than they did in Roe vs. Wade.
It has been awile since I have read Heller and would like to reread it before I comment much farther on it.

Is that a serious, thought-out statement? I mean, are there really people that feel that way? I couldn't fathom preferring to watch my wife or kid get raped at knife point over shooting an assailant, but that's just me. Exaggerations were made but I simply expanded your comment

Clearly not one in ten thousand Americans including children.

One in one hundred thousand tops. So 6000ish a year.

Many of those wouldn't require a gun. Just involved one.

To have a well regulated militia to fight invading forces.

Your glock 19 won't stop North Korea invading the white house. That was just a bad film.

OMG THEY DID IN BOTH THAT IS THE POINT!!!

Hue spelled it out. How do you not comprehend.

Gun owner! Can't follow basic conversations but can own a firearm!

My main man, good work on standing up for liberty and your godgiven right to feel like a big man even though you aren't.

But real quick, REAL QUICK, can you happen to tell us who you're leaning towards for President? Just rank the top few since it's still the primaries.

Some people don't live in a paranoid fantasy world where the events you describe are all that common.

Kind of like your paranoid fantasy world where gun violence among people outside of urban gangs and criminals is all that common?

Good thing we don't force ourselves to examine the failed policies that lead to the devastating condition of gang violence and the poor economic conditions of so many people in urban areas. Let's just blame guns.

It's probably best to be reworked like this. People get in arguments, fights, and altercations all the time, everywhere in the world. Crime happens everywhere in the world. Take situation A, add a gun to it, and you've added a lot of lethality that might not have to be there.

Well your statement that I somehow feel like a big man is false.

I will state this one time only because it isn't something I like throwing around: I have put my life on the line for my country fighting overseas. I voluntered to go through hell when my country asked me to. What the hell have you done exactly besides set at your computer demeanimg people you don't know a damn thing about. Huh, big man?

I can honestly say that there isn't one person on either side of this Presidential race that I like very much at all. I guess Kasich is my #1 now that Rand Paul is out. Hate Trump, hate Clinton, hate Sanders policies, hate Cruz, Rubio...Meh I guess he is #2. Carson seems like a nice guy but don't agree with him on many issues.

Are you planning on abstaining from voting in a trump/Clinton contest?

Oh I comprehend the arguement. I just think it is wrong.

Banoid! Can't accept that everybody doesn't think like him so resorts to broad moronic statements.

No I would have to hold my nose and vote for Trump. There is uncertainty when it comes to what he would do as Pres, but with Clinton I think it is very certain and I don't like it. Plus at least Trump will have already taken it to the Repubs win or lose. That is a point for Trump right there.

We know you aren't too fond of the definition the rest of the world uses for "lurk," but what about "irony?"

Holy **** I finally looked up banoid. What a stupid ****ing thing to say

What does it mean? Google refuses to give me the answer.

It's a really stupid term for someone who wants to ban guns. I got it from a forum post titled "Banoid in chief to introduce new gun ban plans"

Gracias

Right up there with libtard as far as sophisticated, well-educated discourse goes.

Lol banoid when banshee is right there.

How is it any stupider than the phrase gun nut that is often applied to those who defend gun rights?

Ya know the whole goose and gander thing...

Guess that doesn't apply ITT? I mean after all, it seems that only gun control advocate talking points, statistics, and sources are readily accepted here. Everything else is shouted down and dismissed and the people putting them forth demeaned and villanized.