My position is that the 2nd amendment limits the national government, just as the first one does. It does not noe was it intended to limit the states, unless oyu wish the High Court to apply the 14th amendment to them as it has, say, the first amendment. That is assuming that you are among those who think that the right to have a personal weapon deserves greater protection than the right to a free exercise of religion or the right of free speech. None of these in the context of our municipal law is an absolute right but a relative one. Freedom of opinion is absolute so long as it is not voiced.
Freedom to have a personal weapon is absolute so long as the gun is plugged.
As I read it, the 2nd Amendment alludes to the state militia. One can infer an individual right,
Infer? The recent Justice Dept report overwhelmingly proved that our RKBA's is an individual right.
but it would be hard to enforce against a state government.
State government officials are all sworn to support the US Constitution and its Amendments as the Law of the Land. It is not 'hard' to enforce that oath.
At 108 you comment:
That is the way that the Supreme Court read it seventy years ago. Argue your ideology all you want. But until you can make your case before the Supreme Court, it is just academic.
The USSC in Miller did not 'read it your way'. They agreed that we the people have an individual right to keep militia type weapons.
Your own anti- gun states rights ideology is evident at 109, where you claim:
The salient term is "the States" as political entities, distinct from the United States.
You want the 14th Amendment to extend to restrict the states as they now restrict their police power in the area of morals?
States have always been restricted by the Constitutions supremacy as the law of the land. They cannot use their police powers to infringe on individual rights.
I mean how is the claimed right to be enforced? Against whom?
Individual rights are to be protected from local, state or federal infringements by our constitutional rule of law, due process, & trial by jury. -- How else would you have it?
______________________________________
I posted the above some time ago. Apparently you intend to ignore my comments.
Now you're claiming that:
[the constitution's] -- primary purpose is to set up a governor and define its powers.
Wrong. Our Constitutions preamble outlines its primary purposes. Try reading it.
It is left to officers and other officals to interpret.
Not so. They are bound to support it as written. And it was written in the ordinary english of its day, still understandable to ordinary people.
Any guarantee of individual rights will be by that government.
That is their duty, true enough. But above you're claiming that States have no such duty when it comes to our individual right to bear arms. Why is that?
You claim the right of rebellion. Not many governments are willing to acknowledge that claim.
Of course 'they' don't. One of our jobs as citizens is to make sure they remember who is boss. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
My position is that the 2nd amendment limits the national government, just as the first one does. It does not noe was it intended to limit the states, unless oyu wish the High Court to apply the 14th amendment to them as it has, say, the first amendment.
And my replies to your positions were posted above, and remain unrefuted. It's becoming obvious you really can't argue those points.
That is assuming that you are among those who think that the right to have a personal weapon deserves greater protection than the right to a free exercise of religion or the right of free speech.
Wrong 'assumption'. All of our inalienable rights must be honored by all of our levels of government.
None of these in the context of our municipal law is an absolute right but a relative one.
Where do you get these odd ideas that muni law can declare some of our rights "relative"? Relative to what? -- The will of the majority?
Freedom of opinion is absolute so long as it is not voiced.
BS. - If you cannot voice an opinion, you have no freedom to do so. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not an opinion, it's a dangerous act.
Freedom to have a personal weapon is absolute so long as the gun is plugged.
Plugged? What is a "plugged' weapon?
-- Really robby, you should consider educating yourself on our Constitution, and on arms, before you spout off further on either subject.