supreme court wrong: no individual right to a gun versus the state

I provided you the link to the Supreme Court opinion in Chicago v McDonald. This is the most recent Supreme Court decision on the matter and they did use the fourteenth amendment as part of their justification. DC v Heller is not the latest word on the issue, and the Supreme Court was not wrong there either. What you do not understand is that the District of Columbia is not a state. It does not have a state constitution, and, in terms of the rights afford its citizens, it relies directly on the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has held through both of its opinions, Chicago v McDonald and DC v Heller, that the Federal Constitution affords the citizens of this country the right to keep and bear arms. This is, indeed, what the framers had in mind. If you had read the references that I posted, you would realize that the debate over the second amendment before ratification of the US Constitution bears out that this is what the framers were aiming to do. As I have thoroughly state my position and offered considerable evidence to support it, I will now attack your evidence. In truth, there is not much left that I can do as you have refused to debate any points which I brought up and have offered no evidence to counter my assertions. Your only evidence which you cited was in your first post, so I shall examine this evidence. The only two sources for which you provided a link, so that I can examine them, were politico.com and thenewyorker.com. I will start with politico.com. While I, personally, like this website, it should be fairly evident that this is not a scholarly source of information. Were I writing an essay for a law class, most professors would not accept evidence from politico as being a legitimate source of information. If I were writing an opinion piece for an English class, at this point politico would probably be appropriate enough to be accepted by my professor. Next I will discuss the New Yorker, which is a magazine though this would be one of their online articles. The New Yorker is a slight step up from politico, as it is a peer reviewed journal. The New Yorker, however, still would probably not be considered the best source of information if I was writing an essay for a professor of law. I could probably use it as a source in such a case, but my professor would still want me to cite additional information from legal sources which backed up my assertion. I have, on the other hand, cited two, and will shortly cite a third, Supreme Court decisions as listed on the Supreme Court's website. All three of these sources would be considered as an appropriate legal source of information were I writing for a class on law. The first of the other two references that I cited is less prestigious, clearly, that the Supreme Court's website, but it is still a very reputable source. This reference was to constitutioncenter.org. This website was created by Congress to "disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a non-partisan basis in order to increase the awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people." This means that this website was created at the behest of the government, itself, to help our citizens understand the constitution. The last source that I cited is less reputable, and I would not likely use it, alone, as a source in a class dealing with law. That source was heritage.org which describes itself as a "conservative think-tank". It should be noted, however, that this source is just as reputable as politico and probably would be considered slightly more reputable though also slightly less reputable than The New Yorker as it is not a peer reviewed journal. So of the sources of information, I have listed two sources which are more reputable than any source you have listed and one that is no less reputable than your least reputable source. I will close with a brief recap of my argument. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on constitutional matters. Interpreting the constitution inherently involves rendering opinions, and, as the ultimate authority, the Supreme Court's opinions carry more weight than any other opinions. We know, as a matter of record, what the framers were attempting to do when they created the second amendment. We know that the founders did not want the federal government to be able to prevent the citizenry from keeping and bearing arms as this was something which was happening in many European monarchies at the time, and they feared the creation of a tyrannical state in the US. The fourteenth amendment was passed to prevent state and local governments from denying fundamental rights to their citizens, disregarding federally guaranteed rights. Using this logic the Supreme Court has decided that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and is extended from the federal government all the way down to the local governments. http://constitutioncenter.org... http://www.supremecourt.gov...