98Z Wrote:New here,. but I've read this whole nightmare, all the way through. All I can say is this - The Supreme Court decided 10 years ago about this. RKBA is an Individual Right. Done.Actually, what I said is the 2A does not explicitly say that the RKBA is for individual self defense. The 2A only addresses collective defense (i.e., having a militia for state security).
Really, it's DONE. Stanc, are you saying that the Supreme Court is wrong?...
All I've seen from you this whole long thread, is how RKBA is NOT an individual right...
Contrast that to the Pennsylvania RKBA that preceded the 2A: "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
98Z Wrote:"the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,..."That's nice. Now show me where it says anything remotely like that in the 2A.
P.S. The Supreme Court sometimes does get it wrong, and sometimes the ruling results from their political leanings. For an egregious example of both, see the Dred Scott decision.
