Quote:
The "infringement" you speak of is what supreme court justices call "rulings," and "rulings" become "precedents." In the 70 years you speak of, we've had courts on the left, right, and center of any issue you can think of,who have all decided that "a well regulated militia" does not constitute unfettered access to any and all firearms.


No, the infringments I speak of are Federal laws. The 1934 National Firearms Act was passed into law just like the Patriot Act. The 1934 act was ruled unconstitional in the 1930's when someone was arrested for owning a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches. The feds appealed, the case went to the supreme court, and the ruling was overturned when the defendant (a small town hillbilly who didn't have enough money for his lawyer any longer) did not show up.

Quote:
In the 70 years you speak of, we've had courts on the left, right, and center of any issue you can think of,who have all decided that "a well regulated militia" does not constitute unfettered access to any and all firearms.


Ironically, the Fed's case in 1939 in front of the Supreme Court was that the short-barrelled shotgun was not a military weapon and therefore was not protected by the second amendment.

Quote:
*Your interpretation* of the 2nd amendment has been "infringed on" for 70 years. Unless you were present at the signing of the Constitution, or are currently sitting as a judge on one of America's courts, your interpretation is no more or less valid than anyone else's.


Last time I checked, translating plain english into english was pretty easy. But I suppose Bush's "interpretation" of the Bill of Rights is no more valid than yours..