What frame of reference do you have to be commenting on the US Constitution to begin with...and what part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is so difficult to understand? This is not a personal right to bear arms, as far as I see it...but a COLLECTIVE right to bear arms..in case of invasion, at least according to the time period in which the Constitution was written. Now..I'm not going to say it doesn't need rewording or some sort of clarification..but the Constitution is as I said not the issue here..the issue here is the interpretation that too many freaking live by...and apparently that's their own private interpretation of it...instead of what it ACTUALLY says. Now..I'm excusing myself from this hornet's nest and I'm not engaging you any further on this. If you wish to take that as a "victory"...knock yourself out. I've got better things to do.
Seriously??? You question my ability to read the law even from a foreign jurisdiction?
You make it too easy. There is no challenge at all.
Man this is like shooting fish in a barrel:
What is my frame of reference? Well I can read and comprehend court decisions, even those from exotic foreign jurisdictions such as the US of A.
And what is your frame of reference?
And in this case your Supreme Court says you do not have a clue about this issue. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the majority stated clearly that:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.http://www.supremeco...7pdf/07-290.pdf
The Heller decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extended beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by SCOTUS in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) and was extended to cover all jurisdictions with the US.http://www.supremeco...pdf/08-1521.pdf
And unless the US legal system has suddenly changed without any notice, decisions from the US Supreme Court are not a "private interpretation" but rather a public and binding declaration of what the law is and it is binding on all within the jurisdiction of the US of A.
So... you are wrong - again.
My frame of reference is better than your frame of reference I guess. eh? I will take this as another victory in an unbroken line of same vis-à-vis our continuing debates on any number of issues.