No, sorry, you're the reinterpretationist.
No. That is false.
The Founders were freedom-loving Individualists like ME
collectivistic repressionists like U
Thay 'd have deemed the NRA to be a wimpy
I notice that u simply IGNORE
the points that I raised in my last post (Post: # 5,050,185
because thay disprove your anti
Pre-US English Common Law, which is the law we were under,
and formed the foundation for US law, is rife with examples of gun control law,
Will u cite
to the common law cases u have in mind ?
In any case, anything inconsistent with the Bill of Rights
was voided n nullified when the 2nd Amendment became the Supreme Law of the Land
on December 15th, 1791.
as is post-Constitution 18th and 19th century America, since the 2nd Amend. ONLY applied to militia.
That is simply false
(tho, I suspect that u r sincere in your error).
As the experts of grammar pointed out,
and the USSC repeatedly accepted, repeatedly citing to them in HELLER
, the right of the people
of the militiamen
to keep and bear arms was free and independent of any service in any militia.
That 's the way it IS
Back in 1990, in the case of US v. VERDUGO
11O S.Ct. 1O56 (at P. 1O61)
the United States Supreme Court declares that:
"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".
THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the National Guard
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined "the people"
to mean those people who have a right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment]
and those who have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment]
in their persons houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
(supra), the Court indicated that the same people are protected
by the First, SECOND
, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e. THE PEOPLE who can speak & worship freely can keep and bear arms.
Note that: the Court RELIED
upon its definition of "the people".
Its decision in the VERDUGO
case is founded upon that definition, so
that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE
who have the said rights.
was re-affirmed by the USSC in HELLER
The 2nd Amendment, AS IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY, is about the militia, which was NOT private
but was always under the authority of the civil government, both Colonial and Republic.
That is historically false.
There existed some
government sponsored militia (called "selected militia")
as those indicated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution
and there were private, volunteer militia as contemplated by the 2nd Amendment,
like volunteer fire dept.s or volunteer libraries. Remember: there were NO POLICE
(Its funny. Around 1845, when police dept.s came into being
in NY City, 2 of them were created and thay went to war
with each other.)
It was the enforcement arm of civil authority and was directed by that authority. It's function was in lieu of a standing army, and as such had organizational and euqipment needs, and a need to avoid cooptation by any faction, which had happened in England, and which the 2A was designed to prevent. It had NO relationto individual rights. It's only the NRA and similar revisionists in the 20th century who redefined it to fit their own agenda. And you.
See my refutations above.
And, I might add, we do NOW have police, and they are constitutional, and they are the legal arm of enforcement.
The advent of police has no effect on anyone's Constitutional rights.
Thay remain intact.
You are a proponent of chaos, not domestic tranquility.
I strive to subject government to the might
of its creator, the Individual citizen.
If u check FBI annual crime statistics,
u 'll find that the State of Vermont has always
had very, very low violent crime. Vermont has never adopted any
anti-gun laws, yet it has no "chaos",
as u chose to put it.
Let America be the Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave.