Originally Posted by
rugerben
Not too confusing to you. But you are not a constitutional scholar. SCOTUS judges are.
I apologize if I give a little more credence to their understanding of the constitution than I give to yours.
I will edit to add that my argument is fallible though. I don't always agree with what SCOTUS decides, and I am just a law school student, not a const. scholar. I also realize that had SCOTUS ruled against gun ownership as an individual right, I would have disagreed with them. I am not saying that you have to agree with everything they say. My point was merely that if it's so clear cut to you, it's probably a good sign that you don't understand it as well as you think you do.
I'd also add: One doesn't need to be a scholar of the Constitution, just a reasonably proficient reader of English. I'm no gun nut, and I think many of them are downright crazy, but I literally can't understand the interpretation that some people put on the 2nd amendment when they claim that arms are supposed to be restricted to well regulated militias. Disagree with the amendment if you want, but that's not what the amendment says.
Often I think people feel so strongly about certain issues that they read things into the Constitution (and myriad other texts) that just aren't there.