"-- 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.
Paulsen's view, -- straight from the ACLU playbook.
First, it's not my "view" -- it inconveniently (for you) happens to be a fact.
First you admit it is your "opinion". Now you claim your opinion is a "fact". Bizarre reasoning.
Second, my facts come come lower federal court opinions, not the ACLU.
No one is disputing that the lower courts have made such opinions. Under dispute is court & ACLU "interpretations" about "the rights of the people, collectively,". Which again, you admit, - bizarrely enough.
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".
Total bull bobbie. - You and I have been arguing this issue in detail since you first started spouting the "collective rights" line, years ago.
-- I've probably 'cited' at one time or another virtually every fact contained in reports like these:
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/ -
That's it! That's all you got! What kind of an argument is that?
Indeed, what more can be said? -- You rant opinions, while I quote the facts about our constitution.
Is this what you're relying on? You ARE aware that some future liberal Presidency can have their Justice Department write their own interpretation. What then, tpaine?
You're saying that you believe the Executive Branch of the federal government when they tell you what your rights are when it comes to arms? Kinda like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop, doncha think?