Replies

"Clearly stated, the Supremacy Clause states as regards the 2nd amendment, that the 2nd amendment is the supreme law of the land, any laws or constitutions of any state that say anything to the contrary notwithstanding."

Well, all amendments, correct? So, all the amendments apply to the states and have since the Bill of Rights was written, correct?

Yet NONE of the amendments were ever enforced against the states. States were banning the press, free speech, establishing their own religions, searching without a warrant, conducting civil trials without a jury, allowing defendants to incriminate themselves, on and on. All against the Bill of Rights. Yet not a peep. Not ONE U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying that the states were violating the Bill of Rights. Not ONE! For 150 YEARS!

And you say this was due to "ideology, to pure power, to ignorance, to misinterpretation, to an out and out intent to ... and destroy the ... integrity of our Republic".

Uh-huh. Sure. What else could explain it, huh?

Takes a while for the problems to be identified and articulated within the given paradigm, and pursued within the system. Example: it was a long time, and took a lot of effort, before women and slaves were recognized as citizens with the rights thereof. This whole "we the people", "inalienable rights", etc. thing is relatively new, and took people quite some time to figure out - especially when faced with people like you determined to hinder individual exercise of rights, coming up with complex non-sequitors which must be [somehow] understood and countered (like someone isn't a citizen because of their skin color).

States were banning the press, free speech, establishing their own religions, searching without a warrant, conducting civil trials without a jury, allowing defendants to incriminate themselves, on and on.

...and you are saying what? That even though these statements (which are given here implying that it was common practise but without documentation so I am accepting them for the sake of the arguement) go against the clear language of the Constitution, that it was a good thing?

Did our nation immediately, upon adopting the constitutiopn, change over to fully complying with it? or did it take time? Clearly, it took time and we are better for it.

That does not mean that violating the constitution is a good, or proper thing...it just means that that is the way it rolled out.

Based on your statement, and your reasoning as you are apllying it to the second amendment, you could equally then apply that same reasoning to justify today that whole list of items that you just mentioned. Would you? Do you?

If not, then my statement to you is that you cannot have it both ways. If you would, well, then at least you are consistant, but, at least from my own perspective and IMHO, still wrong.