Again, if you don’t like the Constitution, there are legal remedies at your disposal to alter it.  You just have to convince 2/3 of the rest of us.

Arguing that you know better than the framers and Constitutional scholars and SCOTUS is a pretty silly rhetorical device.

Apparently so.

• Doctrine says Israel would be wiped out in 9 minutes

The authors of our democracy felt the individual’s right to bear arms was fundamental. SCOTUS has re-affirmed it. If you disagree, there is a method provided in the Constitution for its amendment.

Our democracy has enshrined the right to bear arms equal to speech and free exercise of voting and religion. Other democracies have not.

Since they are citizens now, that will not happen. But the good news is, it dosen’t prevent us from forbidding it in the future!

Whoever this guy is wearing that ugly coat is the definition of classless moron.

A nuclear weapon isn’t in the definition of “arms” the framers of the Constitution used. But you knew that.

The purpose of a gun is to shoot.  What you shoot at is another issue.

Your reasoning is circular. Fundamental rights are fundamental to our democratic society. Their exercise can NOT be restricted beyond the barest minimum necessary to ensure public safety and cannot be pre-restricted by legal barriers (i.e. poll tax). They are indeed individual rights as per the plain language of the…

1) Constitutional rights are fundamental rights and treated similarly.

Constitutional rights are not treated differently. They cannot be limited nor can the government place undue burdens on your free exercise of those rights. Also SCOTUS states the 2A expressly grants an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.

That’s not the “express” purpose of a gun.  Don’t be cute.  It weakens your argument.

They aren’t expressly Constitutionally protected either the way guns are.  So there is that.

Again, a lot of things are dangerous, though legal.

Then amend the 2A.

The urban poor are fairly well armed as it is.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.  They have the final say.

Your first point is directly contradicted by SCOTUS.  I trust their interpretation over yours.  The rest of your “points” are just snark.