I don't think we need another day, but thanks.
I've had this debate a bunch and I don't know if I've ever seen anyone change their position. The USSC interprets The Constitution, if you understand that, you understand that Amendment 2 is not about private ownership (here I leave out the typical argument that "if you can read..."). If you're a gun owner, you "will it" to apply to private ownership. No amount of reasoning will change anyone with such a view - it's an emotional issue with them, they hear some one wanting to take away one of their toys. Conversely, people familiar with the context and case law cannot accept that Amendment 2 applies to something that it doesn't. So, they too, are immoveable.
I wouldn't have gone this far except in these days when The Constitution is being shred willy-nilly and with barely a peep from the Murican People, my dander gets a little up when I see a reference to this old misrepresentation.
Enjoy shooting, or killing, or whatever trips your trigger.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
