[ctdonath2]

Ah, but you did. To wit:

According to the courts, the second amendment only protects your RKBA as part of a militia.

That's a collective right, as it only exists in relation to a government-established group. Absent the gov't-organized militia, the individual has no right (in your arguments) and the gov't can ban private arms ownership.

[tpaine]

Next we will be seeing:

'-- We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect --- We can choose not to protect your right to arms.
If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this as the state pretty much has free reign to pass whatever laws they wish. --'

Our anti-gun collectivist FReekers never give up.

[robertpaulsen]

"According to the courts, the second amendment only protects your RKBA as part of a militia"

Allow me to clarify:

According to the lower federal courts, the second amendment only protects your RKBA as part of a militia.