"The 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right" - Barack Obama

[friendly_iconoclast]

Enough with the 'militia' bunkum, already...

[Loudly]

1. He's got to say that. But he's smart enough to know the truth.

The 2A has as much relevance to modern American life as does the three-fifths compromise.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. It appears your work is cut out for you- get to it!

Section V of the Constitution awaits your attention.

[Loudly]

5. Replacing Scalia and Thomas will pretty much solve the problem. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Well no, as all the other justices agreed that the 2ndA protects an individual right...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Stevens, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit
[June 26, 2008]

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

There's another little-noticed bit from that dissent which would make your task that much harder.
I hope you appreciate the irony of it:

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

[Loudly]

7. Easily reconciled with jurisprudence evolving around manufacture, importation and sale.

Practical access to and abundance of the product is the route most easily taken via the judicial branch, allied with a strong-willed and serious executive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. And if the legislative branch disagrees, and has a supermajority? What then?

[Loudly]

9. Then they are free to amend the Constitution. Which is a hopeless endeavor for either side.

Control of the courts is everything.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. They would also be free to impeach the President-and they might very well succeed at that endeavor.

I don't think a Congressional supermajority would bow to the Supremes in any event.

[Loudly]

11. Impeach the president for a SCOTUS majority decision hostile to the gun trade?

Or impeach him for nominating justices who wrote and/or concurred in such a decision?

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Congress can impeach a president for whatever reason they like.

I'd remind you that Bill Clinton got impeached (but not convicted) ostensibly for having sex with an
an intern and lying about it, but in reality because Republicans didn't like him...

[Loudly]

14. But blaming the President for a Supreme Court interpretation of the 2A?

The cry at the time (1954) was impeach Earl Warren.

[luckyleftyme2]

15. why I carry

people like you let druggies have a free ride-you don't turn the kid in who is selling pot in school. well when that kid becomes hooked he roams for cash and will attack and rob anything that looks like it has it. Or he's the bus driver,the crane operator,the train,plane or whatever that has killed so many innocents. I live in a rural state in a small town and always thought it was a big city problem-well it ain't anymore! Let me tell ya ain't no one taking my weapon-and I'm not license to carry it. but I will use it to protect me or any innocent person ! you druggies be aware there is 100's of us in my state just like me! And we don't advertise we carry just to confuse your kind!
so that spiel about 2nd amendment and now is bull! we need it now more than ever!

[HereSince1628]

17. You are aware that flouting the law is anti-social behavior?.

Everyone with anti-social behavior has justifications about why their particular brand is ok.

I suppose you are aware that anti-social behavior has a very high association with violence?

[Loudly]

18. There isn't a speck of Constitutional basis in your rant.

It's all just I Feel Scared And I Want A Gun And Bullets.

At present, it's true that you are benefiting from a political indulgence of your kink.

But it has no merit as a claim of "right."

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. So does the 1st, yet 7400+ Occupiers have been beaten and arrested for expressing it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Show me *any* politician and I'll show you a hypocrite.

They seem to be better at dealing with cognitive dissonance than ordinary folk...

[Bucky]

13. We have to procede carefully. We don't want Scalia flipping out and shooting up the Court chambers

[cthulu2016]

16. He ran on that in 2008. I objected to it in 2008.