[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "An immunity of citizens of the United States arises out of the nature and essential character of the national government. That ain't a RKBA. The national government does not extend this right (and you don't want them to) -- this is a fundamrntal right, protected by the states that is not to be infringed by the federal government."

Please explain, in light of the individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected from infringement by the federal government by the Second Amendment, how this protection differs from the protection provided for freedom of speech in the First Amendment.

Please explain how the First Amendment has been "incorporated" by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and yet you deny that the Second Amendment is incorporated as well.

What is the distinction which you see which justifies the asymmetry in legal treatment?

[robertpaulsen]

"Please explain,"

No. I'm tired of explaining. That's all I've been doing is explaining.

You tell me.

You tell me how this protection doesn't differ. You tell me how the second amendment has been incorporated. You tell me why they should be treated equally.

Then I'll ask the questions.