arma virumque cano (et alia)
For someone who hates the Founders, you do quote them a lot.
So have you started the clearly defined method of amending the constitution to either repeal the 2nd amendment or propose changes to that amendment? Short of that, I am not sure what your point is.
My idea is to relegate it to the scrap heap of irrelevance. When the Supreme Court reverses the Heller and McDonald decisions, and when other courts follow suit, we'll be getting there.
So, your idea is to leave the Amendment on the books, but to use the Court to render it toothless, thus leaving a tangled mess for every future court. All that rather than trying to repeal an Amendment you don't like.Also, you keep saying that the amendment is obsolete and irrelevant, but you keep endorsing Laci's positions that the amendment means something different that is still valid. Which is it? Is it a valid amendment with a collective meaning, or is it an invalid, obsolete one with an individual meaning?
Will you please stop with the continual attempts at catching me out. Do you have something to say, something to offer? Or is your whole agenda to find the gotchas?