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

I addressed your arguments, but I dismissed them outright. I do not need to rebut your argument as, just like I stated, they are completely invalid. You focus almost exclusively on thoughts and opinions about the second amendment which have been developed over the years. Nowhere in your argument do you address why the amendment was created in the first place. This is the only argument which is relevant to a Supreme Court decision. Unlike district and circuit courts, the Supreme Court does not need to use precedence, and they do not need to prove their argument. They are responsible for setting precedence based on their own views. It is impossible to say that they got this wrong, because it is merely their opinion. As I have stated, it does not matter what the amendment says. The Supreme Court is interested in what was meant and in context. I provided you with two links, one of which contained a detailed analysis of the entire debate to create the second amendment. The purpose behind the creation of the second amendment is not in argument. The only argument which has been made is whether or not the states, not the federal government, have the right to ban firearms. On this topic the Supreme Court still has no need to rely upon precedence. They are still able to create precedence. Technically the rights given in the Bill of Rights were all meant to guarantee citizens' rights as they applied to the federal government and none offered any protection of those rights from a state or local government. When debating a case dealing with state or local governments having denied the rights of the citizens, one of the most heavily relied upon amendments is the fourteenth amendment. This amendment created a burden upon the states that they cannot make laws to abridge the rights of the citizens. This amendment was sited by the majority opinion as being the reason why Chicago could not deny its citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This was held in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in McDonald v Chicago. The legal argument behind this interpretation is, indeed, sound. If you disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling you can only have two arguments by which to do so. The first argument you can take is that the original intent of the second amendment does not guarantee the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms. As I have stated, this point is not in debate. We know what the framers had in mind when creating this amendment, and we know what their intention was. The only other argument that you can make is that the right to bear arms is not extended from the federal to the state governments. The Supreme Court has held that, based on the fourteenth amendment, the right to bear arms is extended to the states as well. You could argue that they did not get this part right, but as I have stated, you would not be correct. When the Supreme Court issues its opinions, those opinions become the precedence for which all future cases based upon similar merits will be decided until such time as the court decides to revisit the issue. To boil down to the heart of my argument I will present four main points. First, the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as this was what the framers intended. Second, the Constitution further guarantees that no state government shall abridge the rights of its citizens and guarantees due process of law via the fourteenth amendment. Third, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on Constitutional matters, and, as such, cannot be incorrect in their belief. Fourth, only another Supreme Court can rule that a previous Supreme Court was incorrect which literally completely neuters any argument that you could have had. As you did not read my references from the first post, I will list them again and also include additional references to the two Supreme Court decisions which I have cited. http://constitutioncenter.org... http://www.heritage.org... http://www.supremecourt.gov... http://www.supremecourt.gov...