"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Congratulations, you were just ibrp!
I'm sorry, but you are not allowed to argue that point so close to an election date. You are subjecting yourself to 1 year in jail and a $10,000 fine.
I'm a literalist and, though I agree with your post, I would disagree with your phrasing.
Everyone has the "right," in the sense that we can't stop them before the fact (except through argument or force), to abrogate any of our rights, even our right to life. They just don't have the right to get away with it or to keep us from stopping them cold when they try. IOW, we can't stop them from passing the law, but we can force them to reverse it (if our lawyers are good enough and the court isn't packed, as it has been the last many decades). That's what the second amendment means to me. I have the right to stop someone from breaching my rights or someone else's rights, even if I have to use a gun or a knife or a club to do it, under extreme circumstances.
I've been glad that the court hasn't taken a case like this before now. If they'd had a case of this nature before Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by Justice Alito I'm afraid that they might have ruled that the second amendment was not an individual right. I'm pretty confident that this court will rule that it is and that's why cert was granted, probably by the 4 solid conservatives. The liberals didn't want to take a chance that it would be ruled an individual right in the past, however unlikely that was, and the laws were trending their way, so they avoided granting cert on anything that had the chance of becoming a precedent that they didn't like.
Judicial activism by non-action in the courts when they had a clear duty to act.
I know, it's an odd way to say it, but it's how my mind works. <g>