Thankfully, I have you to interpret the law for me. We need to let the USSC know that it erred in finding that minors have the same First Amendment protections as adults. And no, they were not emancipated. So once again, where does the 2d Amendment mention only emancipated, intelligent, not prone to violence adults have the right to own and bear arms?
It's been interesting, but I do have to run. I'm not going to go over the same arguments time and time again. You know my position. Although everyone here has decried my reading of the 2d Amendment, it's funny to see that I can't identify even 2 of you who agree amongst yourselves.
Some of you agree that certain persons cannot avail themselves of the 2d Amendment; Some of you say that it has no limitations as to children, criminals or others not fit to carry. Some of you agree that a nuclear weapon is not one contemplated by the 2d Amendment, but a machine gun which did not even exist at that time did; Others here believe that all weapons of any type can be owned. Some of you here believe that the "militia" argument is still valid and that local militias should be permitted; Others understand that the reason for the Amendment actually no longer exists, but that the right still exists. Some recognize the lunacy of bringing a gun on a commercial flight; Most here do not.
Anyway, you guys should all get together and work out a single theory. After all, it's not surprising that if you folks can't agree on the scope of the 2d Amendment, why shouldn't others have questions about it?
I see you haven't bothered to attempt to grasp the concept of emancipation yet. Here's a clue: The age of reason is not some historical period.
"I do have to run. ... You know my position. "
Later...