[belercous]

bcj1775: Dude, you're just, well, not well informed. You have no clue of that which you speak. I'm not gonna bother replying to you again, nor even reading your posts. Don't bother, you just know everything and are way too smart for me. Give yourself a cookie and gold star. Try getting an education before you speak on things of which you know not. Hey, good job on the spelling though, I will give you that.

Harballer: Well, actually I did my own research when I was in law school. And also when I majored in political science in college, minor in American history. Where are these letters in re; 2nd Amen debate? Constitutional scholars would love to have them. Are they opinions or are they transcripts of the congressional debates? Not debates, pro/con among the states and people, but what actally transpired in the 1st Congress? Obviously, you have something which could have settled this issue well over 100 yrs. ago and have been hidden for years from historians. Please direct me to them.

I may be in the minority relative to the general public, but the public hardly is constituted of legal scholars. As far as legal scholars go, well hey, I've just got to inform the professors at SLU School of Law about this, may I quote you. I'm sure they'll take your word for it. Actually, you do raise a valid point, there are more cont. scholars today taking your view, but they are hardly in the majority. Of course, they don't count. What does count is 5 people in black robes, and I'm hoping they will take your view. Remember, I'm in favor of gun ownership & concealed carry. I own well over 50 guns myself. I'm just saying what the general consensus of legal scholars has been. Not making it up, it is history.

Actually, "regulated" meant both "governed/controlled" and "functioning" back then, same as it does now. Often words have more than one meaning, this is where the ambiguity comes in.

You are correct that the Const. was tried to be written in common language. But often words in their common or "vulgar" useage are vague and have a less precise definition (because of the ambiguity of the vulgar usage)[and before I get hate mail, look up vulgar] it cannot be helped than to use their more precise meaning in legal documents. This is to preclude misunderstandings (due to the verbiage) from arising later. Words used with specificity are less likely to be misinterpreted later on, that is why they are employed in legal documents.

Now, Hardballer, and I see from your post that you are a fairly reasoned man, so please answer me this; how can the Cons. grant an individual the right to own a gun when it did not even grant an individual the right to free speech, or to practice one's religion, the right to a jury trial, etc? How is that possible? Did you see the part in my post about the "incorporation" controversy?"

Right now, I've been kept from my bourbon long enough and I have a Merle Haggard DVD to watch. Me out now.