Of course it does...the Bill of Rights (the 1st ten amendments) are for and by The People. So, they'd have you believe that that's true for all of them, EXCEPT THAT ONE?
These people are insane.
Yes I remember the Second Amendment (Republican version) well saying that the right of the people to bear arms shall only be somewhat infringed unless the government wants to infringe it for what bureaucrats think is a good reason. As opposed to the Democrat's version which says the right of the people to bare arms only applies to those people in the military and law enforcement.
In the liberal/leftist/socialist/commie mind amendments 1,3-9 are all about individual rights. Yet for some magically faaaaaaabulous reason number 2 is a colective right.
and therein lies the trick of the left, they do believe in "rights". Rights as collective rights with the individual right subservient to the rights of the state.
they will never do it to many people value that law it won't go away trust me
Re: Bush Lawyers Target Gun Control's Legal Rationale
It is obvious that this was written by a leafiest, because they use the Marxist code words of “Although scholars long have noted the ambiguity of the 27-word amendment, courts generally have interpreted the right to "keep and bear arms" as applying not to individuals but rather to the "well-regulated militia" maintained by each state.”
The Bill of Rights (the 1st ten amendments) are for and by The People. So, your words would have one believe that that's true for all of them, EXCEPT THE SECOND AMENDMENT. The writer seems to ignore the fact that the Constitution is to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT not the PEOPLE.
The writer should have pointed out that there was no ambiguity with the Second Amendment until the Marxists started to try to restrict gun ownership. This is a trick of propagandists, to get what you want Change the Meaning of the words, re interpret what is said so as to confuse and then allow the RIGHT to be Stolen.
Now is the time for Patriots to show themselves and start attacking the Marxists who would destroy this great country, it is not time to quote their lies.
Exton
The 2nd Amendment grants NOTHING! It simply PROHIBITS the infringment of the pre-existing RKBA of the People. It does not CONFER (bestow) RKBA as Clarence Thomas has written. Our rights are God-given, according the the DOI.
What does it do? It further clarifies (federally) the limits on Article I Section 8 Powers... The Congress (some may argue this also enjoins the States) may not infringe the People's right to keep and bear [all] ARMS (not just firearms).
Why does the 2nd mention the "well-regulated milita?" Such an institution is a necessary burdon, because although armed men as individuals may nip at the heals of a "select militia", they, in their unorganized fashion, are at a disadvantage to "secure a free state", and that's where training, standard equipment, coordination, organization come into play to produce a "well-regulated" militia.
That's the whole point. What part of Shall not be infringed upon has the US government not got over the past 40 years?
the whole "militia" argument is spurious anyway: "milita" means every (male) citizen of able body at least 17 years of age.