"The people" were the enfranchised body politic. By definition, it excluded certain persons.
"You believe that the only rights we have are the ones approved of by the judiciary. “Incorporated” you call it."
Starting in the 1900's, the process of "incorporation" selectively applied the Bill of Rights to the states. As written and as intended by the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights were only a restriction on the federal government.
"I keep pointing you toward Article VI para 2."
That says the U.S. Constitution (as a contract) supercedes all other contracts (eg, the Articles of Confederation), and is the Supreme Law. Article VI, Section 2, does not say that everything in the contract also applies to the states. That would be silly.
"And your wordplay doesn’t change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Founding."
The right is inherent. But I'm talking about the protection of that right, not the right itself.
You can’t point out where it says what you claim, once again. Its not there. So your whole argument is based upon a fallacy.
You had better re-read Article VI para 2 again. It specifically says what you claim it doesn’t.
Just so we are clear here, this is the ENTIRE text of what I speak of:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
So yes, it DOES say what you said it doesn’t. The States are bound by it, your beloved black-robed tyrants are bound by it; it is the Law of the Land.
Any ruling made by the BRTs contrary to it has no force of law. They broke their oath of office when they made the ruling contrary to. Of course, they have been enforcing each others rulings for so long that that principal has been lost.
Time to remind them of it.
When the Second Amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", how can you suggest that the protection does not extend to the inherent right that you agree exists?
How does the fact that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, reduce the scope of the inherent right protected in the Second Amendment?
It would be so easy to word an alternative Second Amendment to apply the protection ONLY to service in a militia, what explains our Founders inability to narrow the protection explicitly, if that is what was intended?