No. What I'm saying is that, regardless of whatever their intention was, an individual right to carry weapons outside of a military-type environment (militia) wasn't approved when deciding what was to be included in the 2nd A.
and that is bs because the intent was to recognize a natural right-a right that pre-existed government and you cannot make such a right dependent on a government created entity to exist. which is exactly what the Cruikshank Court was noting .
He ignores the fact that ALL the founders saw the right as PRE-EXISTING the government but he would have you believe that a PRE-EXISTING natural right (ratified and guaranteed by the second) some how requires membership in a GOVERNMENT controlled organization to vest. That flies right in the face of the entire foundation upon which the constitution and the BoR is based upon.
Your one liners-that appear to be the stuff of a bot-are worthless, dilatory and usually have nothing to do with the subject of the thread in which they are laid.
So the states gave their union the power to forbid the carrying of weapons? Where is this power enumerated?
Bots are getting more and more life-like these days. They don't actually pass the Turing test, but they're close.
Some of the posts I see look like they came from an AI PhD candidate at UCLA-one whose first or second language is NOT English. Its the same silly stuff over and over.
individuals of the People are specifically subject to the Police power of a State regarding the keeping and bearing of Arms.
Really? How can that be? Do they give an example? The -ing ending in "being" makes it, not only prefatory. But an absolute clause. Meaning it modifies the main clause. "A well regulated militia being necessary..., the RTKBA shall not be infringed" As in "The ship having arrived to port, the passengers shall now board" "Standing on the chair, John can reach the ceiling" So if the ship hasn't arrived to port, the passengers shall not board. If John doesn't stand on the chair, he can't reach the ceiling. And if a well regulated militia is not necessary... well.... you get the idea. That's an ad hominem fallacy. Unbecoming to an attorney with any self-respect. Or with any respect for logic. It may be true that my goal is to advance anti-gun legislation. That doesn't mean it's not a linguistic matter. As a matter of fact, Scalia made it a linguistic matter. A huge part of Heller is pseudo-linguistics.. So left or right... Everybody other than you is in agreement that it's definitely a linguistic matter. And your trying to avoid the linguistic aspect clearly indicates that you are ill prepared to participate in the debate.
Sorry, if you were right, the founders would have said-the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the founders KNEW states don't have rights but powers so they would have said, THE POWER of the several states to arm their state militias shall not be infringed. Who is everyone other than ME? You need to spend more time with legal scholars and less time with irrelevant linguistics pseudo experts.
I see nothing political in his statement-are you claiming Bots are, by nature, only leftwing in their programming?
That is hilarious. I want everyone to read this nonsense. Are you saying people are not individuals? Do you pretend they are like coral?
you have to appeal to ignorance and believe you are Right, simply Because you are on the right wing not because you are resorting to the fewest fallacies.