I get this @txradioguy … citizen army. But you keep missing "well-regulated" and "state".
In Colonial times there was no formal organized Army like we think of today. If Washington needed to raise an army he looked to the state militias. They were the precursor to what we now know as the National Guard.
But even then the individual was responsible for the purchase and upkeep of their own personally owned weapon.
So well regulated and state had totally different meanings and purposes when that part of the 2nd Amendment was written.
See, this is the problem. [Full disclosure: I think there are cogent reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves] ….But, the 2nd amendment does not speak about individuals outside a well regulated state militia (to fight the federal government should it become necessary). Again, these are the 27 words in the Constitution:
Ummm yes it DOES speak to the individual. Right after the comma where it talks about the militia and the state it very clearly says:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
It doesn't get much clearer than that. If you don't see that then I'm not sure what version of the 2nd Amendment you're looking at quite frankly.
One man or one woman wearing a black robe sitting on the highest court in the land is all that stands between the interpretation of 2A as a state's right to form a militia and Heller's interpretation that the 2A extends to individuals, absent a state militia.
No it's not. And it's very naive to think that. All you're doing at this point is repeating the same jibberish that Jazzy is. Why I don't know.
Again Heller didn't extend any right. The right was already there. Heller reaffirmed that right.
I suggest you read ALL of Scalia's majority opinion.
Don't tell me the Democrat-Socialist wouldn't have a chance using the reversal of Heller to come and get your guns. Don't you dare -- you know they will.
They know they can't do it through the courts and they won't get it done by repealing the 2nd Amendment outright. If they could they would have either under Clinton or Obama. Fienstien said as much in 1994 when the Assault Weapons ban went into effect.
So they do it through all these red flag laws and registrations schemes. Or apply exceedingly high taxes to make it impossible for you and I to purchase a gun...which is in turn a defacto band and violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Think very carefully about throwing the baby out with the bathwater come Nov 3, 2020. Very carefully.
Trump needs to do the same. He's voicing support for these Democrat born ideas of gun control and on top of that he's got Ivanka in the background on the phone to Republicans twisting arms to get support.
Trump is playing with re-election fire if he does even a tenth of what the Libs want.