Replies

If you have a different understanding of Article 6 than Marshall and the rest of the Founders, then you would of course have a different understanding of the Bill of Rights than they did.

But leaving aside that there is no historical basis for thinking the Second applied to the states why do you even want to? There must be a reason for this passion and I'm frustrated that I can't see it.

I don't see how there can be any other interpretatin of Article VI, other than that the Constitution is the law of the land.

So you believe that the founders of this nation went through all the trouble of ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but what the heck, lets let the states do whatever the hell they want??? If the Second was supposed to stop the infringement of a inalienable by Fed. Gov., why would it not be an inalienable right of the people as far as states are concerned also?

Maybe I don't understand your question. Why we have such passion about the Second Amendment applying to the states? Because it was supposed to serve as a restraint on government.