[wagglebee]

Then let me ask you this: what possible purpose does the Second Amendment serve if EACH AND EVERY STATE can prohibit the right to keep and bear arms within the state? Because, this is EXACTLY what you seem to espouse.

[billbears]

does the Second Amendment serve if EACH AND EVERY STATE can prohibit the right to keep and bear arms within the state? Because, this is EXACTLY what you seem to espouse.

And as your ignorance continues to amaze I only 'espoused' one that was addressed repeatedly in SCOTUS. I would bother posting the cases but why bother? You feel so why would you need the law eh? If you so choose to look up the cases I'll give you a hint. Second half of the 19th century at least 5 years after the passage of the 14th.

For the record, Parker and Emerson have changed that view somewhat, but to my knowledge nothing has reached SCOTUS for final definition.

BTW, are you going to ping everybody sometime I back you into a corner with an argument that goes over your head? Or is this just going to be random....

And for the record as Mr. Madison later said in the speech I quoted, it is up to the separate and sovereign states to pass their own protections as they see fit for their respective citizens. This would apply to the Second Amendment as well

[floriduh voter]

Nothing is More Important than Life by Jim Robinson.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914017/posts