03-14-2018, 07:16 PM
^ That's your interpretation of the founders' intentions and application of the Second Amendment pappy.
The 'inalienable' right does not guarantee or specify the bearing of any and all arms, accessories, and ammunition. It just doesn't. It does, however, guarantee an inalienable right for 'well-regulated' militias to bear arms. And, since every citizen (except those banned for cause by law) maintains the right to bear arms to this day, it stands to reason the Supreme Court views all citizens as members of a well-regulated militia.
Outside that, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide constitutionality of laws?
The 'inalienable' right does not guarantee or specify the bearing of any and all arms, accessories, and ammunition. It just doesn't. It does, however, guarantee an inalienable right for 'well-regulated' militias to bear arms. And, since every citizen (except those banned for cause by law) maintains the right to bear arms to this day, it stands to reason the Supreme Court views all citizens as members of a well-regulated militia.
Outside that, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide constitutionality of laws?