NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

I wanna open a gun shop on the magnificent mile.

Congress can violate someone's right under the second amendment, then, by banning the private ownership of arms that someone would be expected (or required) to use in militia service.

That's not the prevailing interpretation of the amendment, and I doubt that any legislature would go that far, but I think that's a fair reading of both the text and the intent of the second amendment.

Your use of the passive voice here conceals an interesting point. Who does the expecting if it isn't Congress?

When you interpret the US Bill of Rights in general, what do you make of the conception of individual rights under English law? It is, after all, the law that applied to the colonists until 1776. During the runup to the revolution, the colonists were asserting their rights under this law. Finally, they declared and fought for independence on the theory that they needed a new form of government to secure their rights under English law. With all this in mind, how, if at all, is the conception of rights in 1776 English law relevant to understanding the American Bill of Rights?

Judging by how Blackstone (1765) summarizes "the absolute rights of individuals", 18th century lawyers understood individuals to have three absolute substantive rights: life, liberty, and property. These substantive rights were secured by three absolute procedural rights: jury trial, petitioning the king -- and bearing arms, which includes a right to resist oppression. How is 1776 English law, as summarized in Blackstone, relevant to your reading of the Bill of Rights in general? How relevant is it to your interpretion of the Second Amendment in particular?

I would regard Blackstone's commentary, then, as an interesting, and possibly relevant insight into one current of thought regarding natural rights at the time of the adoption of the constitution.

cjhsa wrote:

I wanna open a gun shop on the magnificent mile.

The overhead would kill you. I suggest you continue doing business from the trunk of your car.

I would regard Blackstone's commentary, then, as an interesting, and possibly relevant insight into one current of thought regarding natural rights at the time of the adoption of the constitution.

What more evidence do you need to conclude that Blackstone's description of rights also describes what the founders wanted to secure through the constitution?

Thomas wrote:

What more evidence do you need to conclude that Blackstone's description of rights also describes what the founders wanted to secure through the constitution?

The text of the second amendment itself.

Thank you, I have no further questions.

Thomas wrote:

Thank you, I have no further questions.

Is that a promise?

Bill, all good points, but I don't think anyone will try to answer your questions.

Bill, all good points, but I don't think anyone will try to answer your questions.

The entire fury of the NRA apparently has descended upon this Zumbo character. Dont screw with the NRA and how they interpret the 2nd amendment, or they will smash your 1st amendment freedoms. All hail the NRA, guardians of their POVs

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Thank you, I have no further questions.

Is that a promise?

What do you mean, promise?

AHA, probably the NRA and noodge realized that stepping on ones amendment rights isnt an ok thing to do in front of all these people watching.