In your opinion. Not in everyone's opinion. There is not a consensus around your interpretation.
Historians (whose job is to reconstruct and understand the complexity of the past rather than influence legal opinion) overwhelmingly reject an individualist reading of the 2nd.
>
>> Many years ago a law professor and constitution scholar explained why this
>> interpretation had historically held sway and why it was far more likely the
>> framers intent.
>>
>
> If you mean Laurence Tribe, he's most recently held that the Second
> Amendment confers and individual right.
>
> Have you gone out and bought an AR-15 (aka an Evil Black Rifle)
> lately? Perhaps you should. Then try to upgrade it to full-auto or
> three-shot burst and then fit it with a sound suppressor, like what
> the opposition has. Tell us about how your ability to do that has not
> been infringed.
>
I don't know Laurence Tribe and I'm not convinced his recent arguments are valid. I was referring to a constitutional scholar that I have had lengthy conversations on this topic with, Prof. James Rollins. No other constitution right is absolute so why the right to own a gun should be is a mystery.
>
>> Not that I hold the constitution or the framers intentions sacrosanct.
>>
>
> Unlike the 1st Amendment. Or the 5th. Some others.
>
When have I ever told you how I feel about the 1st amendment or 5th amendment or any amendment for that matter? I'll repeat, I do not hold the U.S. Constitution or the framers intent sacrosanct. That's a pretty straightforward statement. We can and should do better today. If you find the U.S. Constitution a sacrosanct immutable document that suggests to me you lack imagination.
>
>> We should be able to modify or replace it as desired.
>>
>
> Ladies and children first.
>
> Oops, royalty and their chosen, first.
>
> Bah.
I haven't a clue what you mean with these lines so if you have a point to make could you actually state it rather than try to be clever? It probably doesn't matter anyway as I really have desire to argue gun rights. It's boring arguing with those who won't change their minds, as is usually the case. Incidentally, I used to subscribe to an individual interpretation and it wasn't until I was older that I came to be convinced of the unsoundness of that position. While I'm open to the possibility that my current position is in error nothing I've read to date, and I've read quite a bit, leads me to seriously question my current position.
John Thornton