King, you are trying to stir things up when you post on the American right to bear arms.
I really wish you would stick to the politics of your own country. You have a tendency to bring out the worst in some posters. They are easily baited by you.
I support the Heller decision that held it an individual right. It is now and will remain so as long as the illiberal left does not get a chance to pack the court.
I agree with George on it's permanence and add that reality requires work to sustain that and our other rights.
It is not possible to have a civil rational argument about the nuances of the 2nd Amendment and how its understanding has evolved over time on this board. Rational discussion on the subject will always devolve into nastiness and vitriol.
There are unfortunately members on this board who turn to hate in partially reasoned response and to personal insult. I imagine, bad manners, fear, immaturity, an over extremity of belief, or some other fault explains this, but it really does not matter.
I sometimes think various posters here deliberately stir up conflict.
King, you may be technically correct on some points and the dynamic nature of how rights have been interpreted over time, but Keith is correct in that there has always been a belief by many in the individual right to arms. Though that belief has not been always been clearly recognized in the Supreme Court.
While Eldridge Gerry at the Constitutional Convention was more concerned about the collective right of the milita within the state and protecting the states from the federal government; both Jefferson and Richard Lee, neither of whom attended the convention and initially argued against the adoption of the Constitution, were both vehement in the adoption of the bill of rights to protect both individuals and the states against the potential despotism of the Federal Government. They ensured the individual right was in the already adopted Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
That being said between the adoption of the Bill of Rights through to Heller, through several previous Supreme Court cases no where has the individual nature of that right been upheld in as clear terms as it is now. Descent into how the various rights evolved in understanding through the centuries, is not a value here today.
The use of the modern Supreme Court to achieve what could or should not be done legislatively is here to stay (thank FDR) Just as voting to keep those who would use it against the things I believe is here to stay.
King, I ask you to give up feeding the animals with bait and stick to doubleguns
