| > What you quoted from Wikipedia does not support your contention Specifically why not? It seems pretty clear to me. Let's take it point by point. () the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended Isn't that pretty clearly an argument that it's not an individual right? I'm sure you disagree with it; I'm sure you think that the individual right aspect is clearly expressed; but given the militia clause and the use of the collective term "the people", someone else might not read it that way. I'm not asking whether you agree with the reading, I'm asking whether you can see that, given that reading, the fact that the framers chose this wording is an argument that they didn't intend an individual right. If not, why not? () that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only This seems pretty clear too. I'll skip the next two points and come to this: () The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." Again, I understand that you think that is exactly the choice the Framers made. Does this very point not show you the depth of the disagreement here? As for the Reason article, again you claim it does not support my contention. And again, I ask you to explain. The author, Damon Root, senior editor of Reason, clearly thinks it does; see the second sentence. Look, I don't always have a lot of respect for the Justices either. I think Scalia is an arrogant windbag, and don't even get me started on Thomas. But I would never go around thinking that they don't actually disagree with me. |