paulsen:
"-- In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.
Don't shoot the messenger here. --"
American Civil Liberties Union : Gun Control
Address:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
"-- We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.
In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. --"
Paulsen's view, -- straight from the ACLU playbook.
Their messages should be shot down.
"Paulsen's view, -- straight from the ACLU playbook."First, it's not my "view" -- it inconveniently (for you) happens to be a fact. Second, my facts come come lower federal court opinions, not the ACLU.
You say the second amendment protects an individual RKBA. But when asked to support this statement, your only response to date has been to say "It should protect it, and if it's not protected then it violates the constitution".
That's it! That's all you got! What kind of an argument is that?