Replies

The Founders never once speak of Rights being anything other than individual.

Speech given as a preamble to introducing one of the final forms for the Constitution, complete with "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note: It doesn't say sh*t about "the Right of a State to keep and bear a militia". It doesn't say the "right of a community to regulate firearms ownership." It clearly states the "right of the people".

And in the State debates it was worded thusly:
Mr. Wythe:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Still other variations of the Amendment read like this:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

You don't have to like it Bobby, but you will not be allowed to get away with such outrageous lies.

In the New York Debates, they worded it this way:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection.

In Delaware they capitalized "People:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But otherwise the same...

When Vermont sent their ratification in, they included this:
Do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, fully and entirely approve of, assent to, and ratify, the said Constitution; and declare that, immediately from and after this state shall be admitted by the Congress into the Union, and to a full participation of the benefits of the government now enjoyed by the states in the Union, the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever.

Or do you think John Adams didn't know what they were signing on to when he penned "the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever"...

You are delusional.

Here's another little tidbit from The US House from June 28th, 1856. Discussing the governing principles for new Territories:

"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That no person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in said Territory; that the inhabitants of said Territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, of trial by jury, of proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted, No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property or demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared that no law ought ever to be made or be in force in said Territory that shall in any manner interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously proved. And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.

But, how could this be if as our anti-gun troll asserts, that those Rights do not apply to the States nor to individuals. Unless, of course, our resident anti-gun troll is a completely clueless liar more concerned with propping up Brady Bunch legal fiction being used to ban firearms and severely restrict what should be an uninfringable Right.

"The Founders never once speak of Rights being anything other than individual."

Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right. I can even argue that the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom of religion" is a collective right -- can I form the individual Church of Robertpaulsen and not pay taxes?

"Rights" secured by what entity? The individual state? If so, then I agree. I have no qualms with rights secured by the individual states being individual rights.

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution (which Madison didn't even think was necessary and added it later under pressure), as written, only applied to the newly formed federal government. All it said was that the federal government could not infringe on these rights. So, the second amendment, whatever it protects, protects only from federal infringement. The state were, and still are, guided solely by their state constitutions when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

As you are aware, the model for the U.S. Constitution was the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781). That document did mention a Militia, but did not mention a right to bear arms -- meaning any such protections would have had to come from state law. From the Articles of Confederation:

"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

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.

Do you really want the federal government protecting your RKBA? Do you really want five liberal justices on some future U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the second amendment -- defining "arms"? Defining "keep and bear"? Then applying those interpretations to all fifty states?

Or do you trust your state to protect your gun rights?