I would like to see sec.57 and 59

While all of this information is relevant keep in mind that courts are the final arbiter when if comes to interpretation of our laws as provided in the constitution. Again, nothing is black and white.

Gotcha. Kind of like the Nuremberg Laws? The Fugitive Slave Act?

In the spirit of fuller disclosure of course.

And even the Supreme Court of the United States of America is made up of human beings, each with his or her own beliefs and each being the product of his or her own 'environment' in their formative years and today living close to those beliefs that may have been imposed upon them by parents or the society in which they lived or choose to live in today and continue to associate with..... These people, appointed to their positions, some of whom may be predisposed to be anti-gun (for reasons discussed above) are tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution so that it must be followed and adhered to by each and every American citizen...:shock:

Yup, I guess nothing is black and white...

And democracy truly is an imperfect system of government... but it's the best we have ever found and has been proven to be the most fair to all citizens.






.

A common misconception - however we are a republic not a democracy Which adds more grey

Which results in many rural areas -upstate New York or Northern California for example - being represented by people selected by high density urban populations, instead of someone who may closer reflect their views


An example of the impact is that nearly all the counties in NY oppose the "safe act". But the 5 bourghs of the NYC support it

Okay... we're a republic with a democratic form of government..... nit-picker:p






.

Slow day :rotf:

Go watch Fox News. That will get you all worked up.

As for me on this hot day, I'm just kicking back and waiting for delivery on the Cadillac that Joel Osteen says God has waiting for me.

I read the original Bill of Rights and I easily see a common thread in all of them, which I believe Russell tried to shine a light on when he listed them. That common thread is that each, and everyone of these amendments, is directed at the individual and are rights reserved for them alone. Not rights reserved for a Militia or church or town or army or .... whatever, just for the individual alone,.... the people.

It seems unreasonable to argue that the second amendment alone is not dedicated to the rights of the individual.

The People
 

Robin, Well said. Right On !