[ctdonath2]

Way to evade the point.

tell me one state where an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not protected. You can't.

I did. And you walked right by it without breaking stride.

You can't say a state protects a right to keep and bear arms ... and then limit that "protection" only to those arms which the state does protect, overlooking those it doesn't.

"You can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black" doesn't cut it.

[robertpaulsen]

"You can't say a state protects a right to keep and bear arms ... and then limit that "protection" only to those arms which the state does protect, overlooking those it doesn't."

I never said "all arms" or "every weapon that ctdonath2 considers to be arms". Every state protects arms. Every state has reasonable restrictions on arms. Some states are more restrictive than others. But every state protects a right to keep and bear arms.

Did you read the quote from the Parker decision that says a government may reasonably restrict arms? Do you want a link to it?

[tpaine]

ctdonath2:
You can't say a state protects a right to keep and bear arms ... and then limit that "protection" only to those arms which the state does protect, overlooking those it doesn't.

Notice how the majority rule mindset simply justifies State prohibitions/infringements, [on assault weapons for instance] as 'reasonable restrictions'.

Socialistic majority rule theory is a political disease.