I never asked for your opinion on whether living within the second amendment is bad or good, but you did seem to express one without asking:You still don't get it. I am not saying it is bad or good, and they do not need two reasons to feel the way they do.No, I explained the one restriction on "tailoring laws to a specific situation" and expressed my opinion that having to live within the confines of the 2nd amendment is not so bad. If you agree, why not just say so?
By the way, your response does not answer my question, so I'm still not sure you realize we are talking about the second amendment here. You seem to have lost track of the conversation along the way. Can you please just answer yes or no:
Just so there are no more misunderstandings, by "another reason" do you mean to say that the reason under discussion is that they are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts?
"Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.
First of all, that's just not true. For example, while Chicago has been forced to allow citizens to possess a handgun in the home, they have interpreted that to mean ONLY one handgun, and ONLY in the house, not on the porch, in the garage, or in any unattached shed buildings. Those laws, and many others related to guns, are unique to Chicago and written by Chicagoans, so they are tailored to their specific situation.
Secondly, what debate were you talking about? I assumed it must be the debate about the one restriction that we have imposed on "tailoring laws for their specific situation": the second amendment. As I said in response, "They are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts. That doesn't seem so terrible to me, but I'm a gun nut. Maybe you can explain why it's terrible."
It seems to me that explaining why it is so terrible would continue the debate that you said you wanted to continue. If you do not agree that it's terrible, that's fine, just say so. I have managed to explain Justice Stevens' position that homegrown cannabis for personal medical use is interstate commerce, but I doubt anyone has gotten the impression that I agree with that view.
Since Bull Gator is gone, we do not seem to have anyone here who is willing to admit that they favor the view that the second amendment only applied in the past and cannot be used to end gun bans. Given that absence, the debate you said you wanted cannot happen unless someone steps up as devil's advocate here and argues the anti-gun view of the second amendment. Are you as capable as I am of articulating an argument with which you may not agree?