King, I do not respect the opinion of a foreigner who constantly disparages our Constitution, and especially one who has the gall to disparage our 2nd Amendment here on a gun enthusiasts forum.
I certainly do not respect the opinion of a deceptive fraud like you who first edits out parts of Ed's anti-gun rhetoric to defend it, and then, when busted in that deception, returns with an extremely tortured interpretation of his words.
Ed's words... his anti-gun rhetoric is clear... as is yours:
The Court in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller changed the 200-year-old narrowly interpreted Second from serving in the militia to an individual right. Do you favour democratic processes over justice of stacked courts?
Why I ask, as I mentioned earlier, is that there is no political will to change regulations; Obama talked about it but did nothing. What party would commit suicide by taking away what a majority considers a sacred right?
Look there King... two short statements... two big fat lies. I've posted long lists of quotes and writings of the Framers that demonstrated the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms was their Original Intent of the 2nd, and the Supreme Court majority used the same well documented words... which you continue to deny. And to say Obama did nothing when he himself considers his inability to pass his anti-gun legislation as his greatest political defeat is further evidence of how deceptive and dishonest you are.
It is hard to expound upon what Miller said concerning the Constitution and the Amendment process. Unfortunately, his words were wasted on someone as dishonest as you. You persist in the notion that the Constitution is some "living document" which can be easily changed by the whims of the electorate and by activist Liberal Left Judges. Affirmation of the Original Intent of the Framers concerning the 2nd was made in both 2008 and 2010 in the Heller and McDonald decisions. But you have persisted in propagating the lie that there was some recent change to the 2nd that was foisted upon the public by Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and the NRA.
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
You want us to respect your opinion when you repeatedly lie to us???
