"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.
Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.
No matter when you quote what the founders meant when they said a "well regulated militia" you will find people trying to put their own spin on the words.
Contrary to your opinion, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the regulation of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the regulation of people called the militia. And how, exactly were they to be regulated?
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"
f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
This is the input from those who had a direct impact on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
If I understand you correctly, you think it is "idiotic" to have an unregulated right (sic) to be able to own a firearm. And yet this country was founded on that very premise. The FIRST time the Georgia Supreme Court considered this issue, this is their ruling:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
What can we say that will make the point any clearer to you?
Wrong.
The Second Amendment in fact concerns the regulation of firearms, and authorizes government to enact measures to indeed regulate and restrict what firearms a citizen might possess and what firearms he may not possess:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
You cannot read very well, can you?
I pointed out in post # 47:
"The Courts have had the POWER to reinterpret the Constitution since then, but they certainly lacked the AUTHORITY. So, legitimately a person cannot be deprived of a Right. Once they paid their debt to society and have been released, they should retain ALL their Rights... otherwise NO Right is safe. Either they are given by your Creator or they are doled out by government. Which is it?"
You are a dangerous individual. PRIOR decisions wholly disagreed with your position 100 percent:
"
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
Did you see that? The state courts said that the Second Amendment is ABSOLUTE. The word absolute is synonymous with unalienable. Now look at what the SCOTUS said just a few years later:
“
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.” United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right; however, it is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. The Right predated the Constitution.
“
[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity” - (George Mason, founding father)
What Mason said with respect to these natural rights (sic) is the exact definition of
unalienable Rights.
“
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” (Samuel Adams, founding father)
The Heller Court made an unconstitutional decision that attacked not only the Second Amendment, but the entire Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights served as a limitation on government, NOT on individuals.
In a very strict, lawyerly sense, you might be right. OTOH, unconstitutional acts, even according to the SCOTUS themselves, do not have to be obeyed. SCOTUS has the power to circumvent the Constitution, but they lack the AUTHORITY.
