@DangerDave Can you email this detailed list? I'd be curious to see it.

Pew research have some info regarding polarisation here. Article is a bit old though.
The graph they illustrate their point with, is quite striking.

[pewresearch.org]

It will take a strong embarrassment and humiliation of the political right to make them behave with honesty and with the purpose of strengthening our constitutional democracy.

@wordywalt lol. An outsider looking in will make the same criticisms of your political left as they do of the right. Egos prevent the recognition?

Nothing in all likelihood.

Actually, the 2nd ammendment was left vague and has not been fully adjudicated (most likely it never will be). Even the early founding fathers had their arguments on it. Since that time, no one would argue for Hamilton's stance.

Sir, his ramblings prove he does not understand much of anything regarding the Constitution. His deflection,, or, psychological projection, is really, well, impressive. Aside from the occasional misspelling, and grammatical error (which I admit I'm guilty of sometimes), he does spin a well worded yarn. That aside, he's still wrong about pretty much everything.. Nice hat by the way... Where can I get one?

@Beowulfsfriend the second amendment is very short and to the point, here it is: "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."

COMMENTS FROM THE ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION

For over 200 years, despite extensive debate and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there was no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its preliminary clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed). To perhaps oversimplify the opposing arguments, the states’ rights thesis emphasized the importance of the preliminary clause, arguing that the purpose of the clause was to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. The individual rights thesis emphasized the operative clause, so that individuals would be protected in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms.

Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an individual rights theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of preliminary phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase keep and bear Arms often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase "well regulated Militia" referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

Using this individual rights theory, the Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in a home be disasssembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The Court rejected the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety of reasons, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home. Similarly, the requirement that all firearms be rendered inoperable at all times was found to limit the core lawful purpose of self-defense. However, the Court specifically stated that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons that would not be affected by its decision. The Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which future gun regulations would be evaluated; and, more importantly, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not have occasion to address whether it would reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The latter issue was addressed in McDonald v. Chicago, where a plurality of the Court, overturning prior precedent, found that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and is thus enforceable against the states. Relevant to this question, the Court examined whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. The Court, relying on historical analysis set forth previously in Heller, noted the English common law roots of the right to keep arms for self-defense and the importance of the right to the American colonies, the drafters of the Constitution, and the states as a bulwark against over-reaching federal authority. Noting that by the 1850s the perceived threat that the National Government would disarm the citizens had largely faded, the Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms became valued principally for purposes of self-defense, so that the passage of Fourteenth Amendment, in part, was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While it was argued by the dissent that this protection would most logically be provided by the Equal Protection Clause, not by the Due Process Clause, the plurality also found enough evidence of then-existent concerns regarding the treatment of black citizens by the state militia to conclude that the right to bear arms was also intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation.

@Captain_Feelgood
You'd have to win the next Clearcreek Free Militia chili cook-off. That chef's hat, custom made by Linda, is now in my neighbor's kitchen.
Or..... simply send $29.95 plus shipping to:
The Big Paw
Care of the CFM
Clearcreek Township, Ohio.

@Mofo1953 I know what it says. And, I know many of the cases and can use google just as well as anybody. It will continue to be litigated for a long time. I was making the point that it was made vague and that even the founding fathers had their arguments. Like Hamilton. Out of curiosity, do you agree with his points (no looking)?

@Beowulfsfriend no agreement with poster points but I do not agree that one of our shortest amendments is vague.

The War of Northern Aggression is not over.