[nradov]

So what. None of those technical differences are relevant to restricting a fundamental right. The authors of the First Amendment didn't anticipate the Internet, but we don't use that as an arbitrary reason to restrict free speech. And you have completely misunderstood the meaning of "well regulated". Read the actual Supreme Court decisions.

Just because one person violated the Constitution doesn't give you the right to do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[suture]

The technical difference are fundamental. To interpret the intent of the writers one has to understand the world they lived in and not merely the words they wrote. “arms” in terms of lethality, ease of use, density of population, second order effects, type of society, etc. are much different now and the amendment is obsolete. Particularly since a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the defense do the country. The tenth amendment is not enforced at all in terms of how it was written. It has morphed in terms of how it is interpreted since society grew much more complex. The second amendment needs to be dealt with similarly.

I didn’t say two wrongs make a right and didn’t use past violations of the Constitution as justification for anything. I just pointed out that the idea that we are a nation of laws is incorrect and that adherence to the Constitution is not done in a consistent way.

I understand the meaning of “well regulated” and I disagree with the Court’s interpretation of what that phrase means and how it should be interpreted. The Court is not infallible. Indeed, in recent times we see quite clearly how absurd it’s decisions can be. The Court should be ignored when it’s decisions are absurd. All decent governments rely on a consent of the governed and the Supreme Court has clearly overstepped itself in a slew of areas and it has lost its credibility. As such it’s recent decisions should be ignored.

If tomorrow the Court ruled that people have a right to create and use biological weapons I’m certain you’d say that the decision should be ignored. So don’t act as though the notion of ignoring the court is unthinkable or unprincipled or irresponsible. Particularly when there is historic precedent for doing so.

[nradov]

Nah. You're just making things up and obviously haven't done even a modicum of research on the historical context.

[suture]

Clearly.