This message was self-deleted by its author

[tortoise1956]

114. This is the last time I engage you, since you can't be bothered to actually fact-check yourself

I'll take it from the top:

If you had actually read the Stevens dissent in Heller, which evidently you didn't, you will see that Stevens first says there is no doubt that the second amendment confers an individual right. He then spends page after page trying to establish restrictions based on the militia preface.

Here is an exact copy of the first paragraph in the dissent:

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.

And here is a link to the dissent:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD

His dissent had concurrence from the other 3 justices in the minority. Obviously the majority held it to be an individual right. Still gonna argue that this isn't viewed as an individual right by the entire court?

As for the rest:
Your comment about the Story quote being ambiguous is telling, in that it clearly shows the weakness of your case. You insist on finding ambiguity when you disagree with comments, and then demand we accept your contention that other comments are clear as crystal, when in point of fact they aren't. Example - your Story quote, that you insist is referring to the militia preface, when there is nothing in the statement to either corroborate or refute that opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, you have demonstrated that you will ignore inconvenient facts and twist words out of shape until you have convinced yourself that they mean what you want them to. In the long run, you do your argument a disservice with your certainty in the righteousness of your cause, and you will make no converts other than those who aren't willing or able to research your claims.

I won't put you on ignore, since hiding opposing POVs doesn't build knowledge or wisdom. I will not, however, expend any more time or energy arguing with a closed mind.

Buh-bye...