Whats the Supreme Courts gig then?
Explaining to morons with agendas over and over again.
Just like homosexual marriage.
Oh and correcting their past screw ups.
You mean anyones agenda that is different than yours.
Apparently infringement is not prohibited.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
Of course you mean, deciding a case the way YOU want.
Yes. My agenda is liberalism. Think about the two examples I gave.
Yes. I want them decided based on law following the contract and the principles of liberalism.
The Amendment is not difficult to understand. It is written in clear English in the vernacular of the times. It clearly says that since an armed populace is critical to the security of the country, the government shall not do anything to infringe upon the right (pre-existing, as are all rights) to own, carry and use arms (in this case, guns.) That of course is subject to the Constitutional provision of due process, which can limit the freedoms of convicted criminals, thus allowing restrictions to be placed upon the 2nd Amendment Rights of those specific individuals. The rest of us, however, are in full possession of our rights. Admittedly, the government has gotten away with many violations of this Amendment.
That is correct. The 2nd Amendment can be limited through Due Process … all of your rights can, with the possible exception of your rights related to trail. To limit that right by due process would be an oxymoron. As far as the concealed carry example, those infringements being allowed by the Court to stand, is simply evidence of my previous comment that the government has been allowed to violate the 2nd Amendment … specifically, the words “shall not infringe.”
No, how it reads.
Yes. Are you assuming?