[my trusty sig]

Yes, yes, but there are some liberal professors such as Laurence Tribe and Sanford Levinson who while conceding that the individual interpretation is indeed correct, quickly add that does not mean ipso facto that reasonable restrictions cannot be applied in certain defined circumstances.

The definitions, however, of these circumstances may be variously interpreted, and therein forever lies the rub. Then it's back to no right is totally absolute, that e.g., re 1st amendment, laws are created and penalties can be imposed for yelling "Fire!" as a joke in a crowded theater, for slander, etc...

The tug of war will continue on and on (that's life!), although it would be refreshing to fight from high ground for a change.

[dpwiener]

there are some liberal professors such as Laurence Tribe and Sanford Levinson who while conceding that the individual interpretation is indeed correct, quickly add that does not mean ipso facto that reasonable restrictions cannot be applied in certain defined circumstances.

I'd much, much rather be arguing with the liberals over questions of "reasonable restrictions" than arguing over whether an individual right to keep and bear arms exists at all. It would be like arguing over whether the 1st Amendment protects virtual child pornography. Sure it may be an important issue, but not nearly so important an issue as whether individuals have a free-speech right to criticize elected officials.

[Senator Pardek]

...Sanford Levinson...

The Embarrassing Second Amendment