[robertpaulsen]

"How does ruling the Second an inalienable individual Right do that?"

An inalienable individual Right to do what?

Oh, you say, "An inalienable individual Right to keep and bear arms". Fine. And if the U.S. Supreme Court says "to bear arms" does not include carrying them around, then what? How is that in our benefit over what we have today?

[publiusF27]

And if the U.S. Supreme Court says "to bear arms" does not include carrying them around, then what? How is that in our benefit over what we have today?

It wouldn't be a benefit or a detriment to me. It would be exactly the situation I'm in today. The second amendment doesn't currently protect any of my guns, nor the uses to which I put them.

[Dead Corpse]

And if the U.S. Supreme Court says "to bear arms" does not include carrying them around, then what?

Then our last course for redress of grievances has played itself out. It means that the King has rejected our request to restore our Rights. It means that things may well progress to the "Boston Common" stage.