Freedom is a real problem for you, I guess.
Are you suggesting that it would be permissible to re-enslave black people if a simple majority of the people decide to do that?
At least finally we see that you are a "majority rules" guy and that arguing for limitations on government control are not to be tolerated. If a legislature passes a law and the courts allow it then that is a good thing.
The serious question which remains is; why are you on FreeRepublic? Who here, besides you, agrees with that philosophy of government which suggests that anything desired by the majority is to be allowed?
What really seems to set you apart is your willingness to tolerate the incorrect ruling of the Miller court despite your own understanding of the grammar of the Second Amendment. You don't seem to know what you think until some court decision tells you what to think.
You have expressed surprise that I might find virtually every court decision flawed regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Why don't you tell us what court decisions you find flawed? Have there been any? Or are you just fine with all decisions, even those in conflict?
You recently agreed that the Miller court SHOULD NOT have constrained the right to keep and bear arms based upon the dependent clause. Don't you see any consequences to the court having ruled in error? Would it not have been preferable for them not to have ruled in error? Would it not be preferable for the present court to correct that error?
You asked my opinion. I said that the USSC in Miller questioning the weapons relationship to a milita seemed to indicate that the USSC was tying the two clauses together. We'll never know since there was no ruling. I said that if they were, that this was inconsistent with other similar non-second amendment cases.
Forget about Miller. It clarifies nothing. One would still have to explain why every federal lower court (save the 5th) has tied the two clauses together.
"Why don't you tell us what court decisions you find flawed?"
Why don't you want to stay on topic?
I've found quite a few decisions flawed, even calling for the impeachment of judges, much to the consternation of some FReepers on this board. You have no idea what you're talking about.
" Who here, besides you, agrees with that philosophy of government which suggests that anything desired by the majority is to be allowed?"
Gotta lie to make your point?
Anything desired? No, it must be constitutional. By the majority? No, we live in representative republic. Our lawmakers vote, and the majority rules.
Have you got a better idea? Maybe we should make you King?