You are grossly misstating my point.
I'm not talking about a "violation of rights". I'm talking about whether or not those rights are protected by the second amendment.
A RKBA not protected by the second amendment does not mean the right is being "violated" -- the right may be protected by one's state constitution.
"My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA,"
There you go again with that word, "violated". Your RKBA is not protected by the state of California, true. But Nevada protects your right. If it's that important, move.
My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA, -- and I, and thousands of my fellow citizens, have no recourse. We are outvoted by a tyranny of the majority, and the demented paulsens of this republic applaud.
You are grossly misstating my point. I'm not talking about a "violation of rights". I'm talking about whether or not those rights are protected by the second amendment.
You are backing the 'right' of CA to prohibit assault weapons paulsen. That is ~gross~ on your part. Your whining efforts to deny being a gun grabber are ludicrous.
A RKBA not protected by the second amendment does not mean the right is being "violated" -- the right may be protected by one's state constitution.
Of course it "may", - but it isn't. -- You support the State of CA's effort to ban 'evil' weapons, - a demented stance paulsen. My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA.
There you go again with that word, "violated".
Your RKBA is not protected by the state of California, true. But Nevada protects your right. If it's that important, move.
Whatta clown you are paulsen. The State has no power to make me move, just as it has no power to prohibit my right to an 'assault' weapon.
-- Which it did, as a matter of fact, well AFTER I moved here with such a weapon, inherited from my father. Bet me that it has to be 'turned in', as you advocate.
Why do you recomend "move" rather than "kill the tyrants"? The tyranny will soon flow to Nevada.
Let's look at Miller, again.
If we ask ourselves, what single mandate did the Founders include in the Constitution to ensure the effectiveness of the well-regulated militia that was necessary to the security of a free state? They chose "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
What is it that lower courts have allowed, citing Miller as justification? Infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. They have granted themselves a power which the mandate in the Second Amendment denies them.
You seem to realize that a machine-gun can hardly be deemed unessential to a well-regulated Militia. The Miller ruling, suggesting that the courts shall be the judge of what is suitable is in error. The Founders mandated that such infringements shall be prohibited.
The consequences of Miller are predictable and unConstitutional. You see the results, infringements of the right to keep and bear some arms, yet you fail to admit that Miller was in error in granting the courts the power to make distinctions not allowed under the Second Amendment.
You have stated that if the Second Amendment merely stated, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", then such infringements would be unConstitutional. You read the dependent clause as changing the mandate.
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed".
Now, given the above, which types of books can be prohibited and who has the power to decide?
A "Miller" interpretation of the above mandate would result in the courts deciding whether any given book contributes to education and whether, despite that, the book might educate people to something which the court deems harmful to the electorate. No such power is granted to the courts by the mandate.