Apology accepted.

Quite simply, that our rights do not flow from the printed word. They can not be read in and read out as political winds change. Arguing that the government has "granted" the right to arms means you accept that there are conditions or circumstances whereupon the right can be "taken back" by government. That is wrong; since no power was ever granted to government to impact the arms of the private citizen the government can not "take back" a power it never possessed, . . ..

So, what's that mean for gun control?

Since the RKBA secured in the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights is not created by such enumeration, the scope of the RKBA is not dependent upon the words only chosen to secure it. Once one understands that tenet, all the arguments for limiting the right based on the lexicon and linguistics of the 2nd Amendment lose their foundation and significance.

Since you are so fond of quotes I want to excerpt from the case I quoted from earlier. This is very important and addresses specifically the topic of pre-existing rights, I hope you will read it carefully. I promise it will be enlightening. The case is U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 US 542 (1875).

This is a case where two black men, recently freed slaves in fact, thought themselves to be free citizens and sought to assemble with others and have a gun in their possession. A group of KKK members had a different opinion; they disarmed them, broke up the assembly and lynched them. The first two counts of the indictment was charging the KKK members with:

"banding together, with intent "unlawfully and feloniously to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate" two citizens of the United States, "of African descent and persons of color," "with the unlawful and felonious intent thereby" them "to hinder and prevent in their respective free exercise and enjoyment of their lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the said United States for a peaceable and lawful purpose."

and then, having the . . . :

"intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.""

The Court, in considering the question of federal protection of the right to assemble via the 1st Amendment, explains about the right to assemble:

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . . It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, . . . The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference."

SCOTUS then opines that since the blacks were not meeting, "in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances" there was no federal protection issue. The Court then turns to the second count and begins this exposition with:

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to [the states]."

It is quite clear that the Court's arguments regarding the right to assemble are congruent with the right to arms and can be read as flowing through both expositions.

Let's revisit the quote again:

The right to arms, "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Hopefully you now see that statement in a different light. Here's another quote from the Supreme Court:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The concept of rights existing before the constitution is a principle evident in the rulings of SCOTUS for centuries.

The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . " VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

"The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. 'To secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' " -- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . ." DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)