Yep. But not all rights. Even when a right IS protected, like speech, not all forms of speech are protected (eg., libel and slander).
The people decide which rights they will protect, and to what degree.
"Because courts also get things right."
Pretty selective, aren't you?
"It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia"."
Uh-huh. The right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. According to the courts.
"If you somehow are correct (which you are not), then who decides who gets to be in the militia?"
That was up to each state, but the Militia Act of 1792 provided federal standards for the organization of the militia of each state.
"If the right to keep and bear arms can be applied only to particular people in this way, then it is not a right."
Of course it is. According to the courts, the second amendment protects from federal infringement the right of people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. That's the right that's protected. It's very specific.
"You say the states have the power to revoke these rights. They don't."
Revoke rights? Who said that?
I said that an individual's RKBA is protected by his state constitution, not the second amendment. If the state constitution is silent (as is California's and five others), then the state legislature is unrestricted when it comes to guns. In Illinois, the state constitution allows for the banning of handguns. And some cities in Illinois do just that -- Chicago, Wilmette, Morton Grove, and others.
"Secondly, what is the militia? If you think it's the National Guard ..."
It is not the National Guard, and I never claimed it was. The militia as described in the U.S. Constitution no longer exists. There is no militia today.
"Those courts are wrong."
Says who? You? And who are you?
"You do not understand what a militia is. A "state militia" is not a militia. A militia, by definition, is not formed by the states."
"And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct ..."
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
"You clearly believe the people are so simple that they cannot understand what a simple expression like "shall not be infringed" means."
I clearly believe that YOU don't know what it means. You've proved that already. Your ignorance is astounding.
You believe, and would have other people believe, that their gun rights are protected by the second amendment. "Not to worry, people", you'd say, "The second amendment will protect you".
What a fool. Sarah Brady loves people like you. If the people of California listened to you, they wouldn't be working on a state constitutional amendment to protect their RKBA. "Hey, why should we pass an amendment to the state constitution? pillbox_girl says the second amendment protects us already."
Life is so simple for simple people like you, isn't it? You say the constitution says A. The courts say B. Well, the courts are wrong.
La-di-da. Life goes on.
I hope you don't vote.
Useful idiots abound.
paulsen inanely objects:
Yep. But not all rights.
Sigh.. --- Robbie, ~all~ of our rights to life liberty, or property are 'protected'. Try reading the 14th.
Even when a right IS protected, like speech, not all forms of speech are protected (eg., libel and slander).
How droll.. You have no 'right' to libel & slander robbie, - but I must admit, -- you do it so well you rarely get caught.
The people decide which rights they will protect, and to what degree.
Ah yes the old democratic 'will of the majority' theme..
Gotta love it when you start spouting your communitarian line..