[quote]pushharder wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
to push: it might sound weird to say this, but ,for all intents and purposes, the court is not wrong until it, later, says it is wrong. they are not infallible, but what they say goes until they later decide it no longer “goes.” …
You’re just playing a semantics game here.
Your earlier implication was that the Constitution Party was “wrong” about its party platform tenets that conflict with USSC decisions. I say, “Big deal.” Does that mean the CP cannot legitimately advocate positions that conflict with USSC? Of course not. You seem to push the “Ho hum…shucks…darnit…we can’t do anything about bad decisions until the Court decides they want to do something about it.” In a technical sense, of course you’re right. But you can’t run 'round discrediting the CP for opposing what it deems bad law; that’s ridiculous.[/quote]
It can be argued all day long whether private gun ownership is a good idea. What cannot be argued with the slightest credibility is whether the men who framed the constitution and the 2nd amendment in particular believed they were recognizing the private ownership of arms as a right. Yet there they were, 4 Supreme Court justices opining exactly that. One more and a fundamental foundational right is ruled unconstitutional. The USSC is no guarantor of original intent by any stretch though that’s it’s supposed to be there for.