What good does it do to say that 2A in incorporated when actually they only said that part of it was? I say it was not fully incorporated. To fully incorporate, they would have to address both parts, keep and bear. You say it would be judicial activism to rule on the bear part when it was not a question before them. I say it is activism not to. Either we take 2A as a whole or we don't. Just like taking the entire Constitution as a whole or we don't. What's the difference? Would you consider only applying that part of the Constitution that you like and abandon the rest? Why would you want to only apply the parts of 2A that you like and abandoning the rest. These judges are cowards to say the very least. I could use worse terms for them, but I won't, at least not on this forum.
I understand that other suits will be brought to clarify all of this, but this only serves the lawyers on both sides of the argument. $$$$ for their own kind is the reason for doing things in this piecemeal fashion. And the fact that they won't catch as much flak from the news media.
