Replies

And their cases will be thrown out, as they have before, because the court will say, as they have before, that the second amendment doesn't protect against state laws.

So, this is just wishful thinking on your part.

Then you'll have folks in D.C. enjoying rights denied elsewhere in the country. I think SCOTUS was set up to resolve such discrepancies.

Yep. But the second amendment protects a well regulated Militia not an unorganized Militia.

That's your opinion. You're confusing the prefatory clause with the independent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Besides, if you're saying the second amendment protects an individual right and not a collective Militia right, then Militia weapons are not protected by the second amendment. Militias don't even come into play.

I'd like to hear what Patrick Henry would have to say to such nonsense. The militia are the people. "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people."

Currently, states protect concealed carry. But you want the second amendment to protect your individual rights. The Parker court said that the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry. So, I guess you must prefer open carry.

Currently, some states protect concealed carry privileges. Two states, Illinois and Wisconsin I believe, deny any privileges with exceptions basically limited to LEOs. About forty states have "shall issue" concealed carry privileges. The remainder are a mixed bag of may issue concealed carry privileges. If paying for privileges is not an infringement of a right, what is? As for my preference, it should be my liberty to carry as the situation warrants. Each choice has advantages and disadvantages.

Not as tiresome as me having to repeat myself for you, time after time.

Good, don't bother. I'm not buying statist koolaid. Adios

You asked:

Why should folks in Alaska and Vermont have more rights recognized than citizens in the rest of the country?

And you got the majority rule/statist 'answer'.
-- Quite a few people in this country ~insist~ that States are not obligated to support & defend all the Amendments to the Constitution, including the second amendment.
To them, state and local laws can be written that ignore due process, equal protection, or the privileges/immunities established in our fed/state constitutions protecting ALL citizens.

To the statist mind, groups of people can rule over individuals. Somehow they see a 'majority will' as a trump over freedom.

As you and several others have noted on this thread, -- it's time to stop responding to this idiotic agitprop directly.