Refer to my post #390.
"I'm sure you're also aware that the issue of "incorporating" the 2nd has been avoided like the plague by the supreme Court"
Avoided? How would you incorporate it -- A state may not interfere with itself in forming a militia?
I notice you have not answered any of my questions.
Too much for you?
Can't deal with obvious truth?
God you are dense. It would be 'incorporated' the same way the others have been. That is, formally stated that the amendments referred to in the constitution are specifically applicable to the states as well.
I still love the way you people twist plain english into knots.
We're expected to believe that every single time the Constitution uses the phrase "the people" it means the individual people in the states, but in just that one instance of the second amendment, it means something completely different. Coincidentally, everywhere else in the Constitution, where it speaks to provisions concerning the individual states, it uses the term "powers", but in that one place, it uses "right" instead. We're also asked to believe that the first ten amendments were organized in such a slovenly manner that they'd jumble everything together, mentioning rights related to individuals, then jumping to a state power, then continuing with individual rights again until it gets to the 9th and 10th, which also uses "rights" where it concerns individuals, and "powers" where it concerns states.
You expect us to believe that the men who wrote the Constitution and the first ten amendments had as poor an understanding of the english language as your average American does today. You expect all this while you try to remove our "Liberty Teech" and the "True Palladium of Liberty". And you expect us to take you seriously, and not recognize you for the petty wanna be tyrant enablers you are.
Sorry. We ain't playing that game.