“...amount to an infringement on a right that specifically prohibits infringement.”
I don’t care for the sloppy use of language, but I get the poster’s drift. The 2A does not confer any right at all: It forbids the infringement of an inalienable right, just like 1, 3 & 4. I’ve had this argument before with people. They always clam up or stomp away after I ask them where their right to free speech is conferred.
Otherwise the Founders would have phrased them all much differently.
Apparently they don’t teach anything about inalienable rights anymore. Pathetic.
That was my beef with Bork’s response to the privacy issue. It accepts the premise that the Constitution is a comprehensive list of our rights rather than one of their powers. Tie goes to the runner.