So do we all agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right for self protection even before the social contract of the people exchanging some of their individual freedom for common protections provided by government? And if this is true and the Second Amendment codifies this right to bear arms under the Bill of Rights that apply to all citizens no matter where they reside why are individual states allowed to restrict this Constitutional right from one state to another? Suppose one state legislated free speech under the First Amendment but another didn’t? Under what States Rights authority is a state allowed to restrict free speech when others don’t? If the Constitution is a limiting document that says “the rights and responsibilities outlined here are agreed to by all of the signatory states while all else is reserved by the states” again, why do states claim to have jurisdiction on gun rights guaranteed by the superior Bill of Rights?
I think this is evident by the "keep" portion of "keep and bear arms" of the 2nd amendment. The alternative would have been to lock the arms in a local armory, to be dispersed to the people only in times of imminent danger.
-PJ
I do not know where this false idea comes from. We have surrendered no freedoms (please show me where I am wrong). We have delegated "powers" not "rights/freedoms" to the State.
Tyrannical government tries to convince us that the "common good" requires that we "give up some rights." Nonsense and a demonstrably false proposition.
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times (do the search), that the State has no obligation to provide any individual with protection. It is reprehensible when States ban the keeping and bearing arms and then abrogate any responsibility in protecting its disarmed "subjects". see California and other liberal held hell holes.
We are armed citizens capable of supplying our own protection and can do a much better job than the State who is at best "minutes away" when "seconds are critical".