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

I would say that the vast majority of your argument is completely invalid. Your argument focuses on what this nation has thought about the second amendment to the US Constitution since it was written. This takes into no account what the original framers of the constitution had in mind. The Supreme Court exists to pass judgement on the Constitution. It is their job to consider what the original framers of that document had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. The original framers of the Constitution were concerned about national defense when this amendment was proposed. The initial idea was that the delegates wished to prevent the federal government from developing and maintaining a professional army which could one day be used to suppress the will of the people. The debate over this point is incredibly intricate. The original view being espoused by the amendment is that, to prevent the federal government from using an army to crush resistance within the states, each state would be responsible for its own militia. This was originally framed as an alternative to the existence of a federal army, but this was not considered to be a viable alternative to a federal army as experience in the American Revolution had proven local militias to be unreliable. The debate which was playing out in Congress, at the time, was between two now defunct political entities, those being the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Those names do, indeed, have a certain implication about their positions in the various arguments which were being debated at the time. It was, basically, an understanding between the two sides that the federal government would have the sole authority to form an army while also not having the right to disarm the citizenry. This was, essentially, what this amendment was about. It really is a problem that this was not explicitly written into the amendment, but there are plenty of examples of the Supreme Court having to read into the intent of an amendment rather than basing their opinion solely upon what is written in the Constitution. One such case is really quite recent. In the case of Obergefell vs. Hodges, in which the court decided that denying same sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional, it is very easy to see where the justices must decipher the intent of an amendment to rule upon the constitutionality of a law. This case was based upon the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Nowhere in the actual amendment does it mention anything about either marriage nor does it mention anything about homosexuals. This amendment does specify that a state cannot create or enforce laws which either abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizenry. The court ruled that the ability to marry another person is a privilege which cannot, therefore, be abridged by state law. As a last note to this, the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It really cannot get this wrong. Interpretation is always subjective; ergo, what the Supreme Court believes to be the intent of the Constitution, as voted upon by a majority of their justices, will always be considered as correct in the eyes of our government. This why the current Republicans who are lambasting the decision of the court in Obergefell do not really have an argument. To force the Supreme Court to rethink its position on a court case would require a constitutional amendment for which there is a very specific and stringent process. One Supreme Court can take a different view from a previous Supreme Court, and that is why we have seen interpretation change over the years, but neither the citizenry nor the the other two branches of the federal government can force a change to the view of Supreme Court except by constitutional amendment. http://constitutioncenter.org... http://www.heritage.org...