[robertpaulsen]

"I'm not a scholar of 18th Centuryese but that statement seems rather unambiguous to me."

Unambiguous and irrelevant.

The question isn't whether or not people have the individual right. They do. The debate is whether or not the second amendment protects that individual right. It doesn't (according to the majority of lower federal court opinions.

State constitutions protect the individual RKBA -- which is why gun laws vary from state to state.

Didn't you ever think that it was odd that concealed carry is protected in State A but not State B? I mean, if the second amendment protected that right in in State A, certainly it would be unconstitutional not to protect it in State B.

If you have another explanation, I'd like to hear it. Let me get some popcorn first.

[SW6906]

"Didn't you ever think that it was odd that concealed carry is protected in State A but not State B? I mean, if the second amendment protected that right in in State A, certainly it would be unconstitutional not to protect it in State B."

THAT IS the argument! That these myriad restrictions on gun rights ARE unconstitutional!

[TigersEye]

Didn't you ever think that it was odd that concealed carry is protected in State A but not State B? I mean, if the second amendment protected that right in in State A, certainly it would be unconstitutional not to protect it in State B.

If this logic held even a drop of water then Roe v. Wade would be perfectly Constitutional and there would be no need for a Supreme Court in the first place.

When you stop choking on your popcorn sophistry get back to me.