First, it's not my "view" -- it inconveniently (for you) happens to be a fact. Second, my facts come come lower federal court opinions, not the ACLU.
You say the second amendment protects an individual RKBA. But when asked to support this statement, your only response to date has been to say "It should protect it, and if it's not protected then it violates the constitution".
That's it! That's all you got! What kind of an argument is that?
The fact that you won't even admit it IS just anti-gun bias and fiction is why I occasionally through out the pejorative "troll" at you.
You know you are wrong, when measured against historical documentation. But because some liberal asshat judge said it, that is the end of it for you. It may as well be writ in stone.
Even though "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" is also in that same clause. A judge can no more "legally" change the definition of the 2A than they can rule against it. But they did. And no one holds them to account as the power structure likes it that way. It gives them control they are not entitled too. Which is fine with you apparently.
Stop cheerleading this perversion. Seriously.
"-- In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.
Paulsen's view, -- straight from the ACLU playbook.
First, it's not my "view" -- it inconveniently (for you) happens to be a fact.
First you admit it is your "opinion". Now you claim your opinion is a "fact". Bizarre reasoning.
Second, my facts come come lower federal court opinions, not the ACLU.
No one is disputing that the lower courts have made such opinions. Under dispute is court & ACLU "interpretations" about "the rights of the people, collectively,". Which again, you admit, - bizarrely enough.
You say the second amendment protects an individual RKBA. But when asked to support this statement, your only response to date has been to say "It should protect it, and if it's not protected then it violates the constitution".
Total bull bobbie. - You and I have been arguing this issue in detail since you first started spouting the "collective rights" line, years ago.
-- I've probably 'cited' at one time or another virtually every fact contained in reports like these:
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/ -
That's it! That's all you got! What kind of an argument is that?
Indeed, what more can be said? -- You rant opinions, while I quote the facts about our constitution.