While most of us expected the government to somewhat ease restrictions, in the wake of the Mumbai attack… they seem to have taken a completely opposite view (why am I not surprised) and are now seeking to directly target gun owners in stead of criminals/ terrorists.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

That which is plainly worded and easily understood you claim means something entirely different from what 99 out of 100 people would say it means.

Indeed, you claim it to mean the exact opposite!

As has been stated before, and was elaborated upon by the Supreme Court, you have 2 clauses in the amendment.

The latter clause stands alone, and requires no qualification. The right to arms can be for any legitimate reason – and those reasons can include self defense and hunting and numerous other activities – there was no need at the time of ratification and there is no need now to list every single reason one may desire to possess arms.

To put a finer point on such an approach, they even included the 9th Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The preceeding clause of the amendment cannot stand alone and requires the second clause to make sense of it. That clause can only make sense in the environment of an armed citizenry.

In short, the Founders clearly desired an armed citizenry for the purposes of militia, but on the other hand the people clearly wanted their right to keep and bear arms written into the BOR as a protection against a strong federal government attempting to confiscate their arms – which was one of the actions of the British that ignited the Revolution itself.

The result of cramming two different thoughts into a single amendment was to state two concepts, the first listed concept was reliant upon the second listed concept for it’s very existence, but the second listed concept was not reliant at all upon the first listed concept and could stand alone.

The former colonists wanted their right in this case enumerated, the states in general wanted to retain power over their militias, and the result was an amendment that combined the two concepts into a single amendment.

For someone so enamored of nuance, you certainly seem to be having a difficult time understanding such a simple concept.

If the 2nd Amendment did not refer to an individual right then the clause “right of the people to keep and bear arms” would make absolutely no sense in the context of the amendment.

Your assertion that there is no reference to an individual right is thereby bogus – it’s pretty explicit in the wording itself. The references I quote, and then you quoted in turn, were specifically used to buttress the argument that it was considered an individual right, so you lose once again.

Stevens was in the losing camp. His theories regarding the 2nd Amendment have been considered and determined to have no merit by a majority of the justices.

Get over it. Heller is now binding precedent, and the right of the people (there’s that phrase again…) to possess arms has been affirmed.

My view is that the Supreme Court majority got it wrong in this case, and I’ve explained why.

As Stevens explains, the fact that numerous state constitutions and nascent versions of the second amendment referred to the individual rights is evidence that the Second Amendment was NOT intended to protect those rights.

You acknowledge:

“three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.”

By your own admission, those proposals were REJECTED in favor of a second amendment that does not unequivocally refer to an individual right to bear arms. That is neither accident nor coincidence. We always assume full deliberation on the drafting of constitutional amendments. They left unequivocal references to individual rights out of the second amendment because they didn’t want them there.

As you know, Supreme Court rulings have been reversed in the past and so this one will be. I would wager in our lifetimes if not in the next 10 years. (We need one or two justices appointed by someone of a more centrist political persuasion.)

Wrong again…soo soo wrong. At this point it’s obvious it’s not a matter of ignorance on your part.
Did you even READ the ruling that you are so obtusely critical of?

You are claiming that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militia, and even go so far as to claim that it does not protect and individual right – yet here is what the court actually ruled:

“1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Regarding the plain language of the amendment, here is what the court ruled:

“(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Regarding what the average citizen would have thought the amendment meant, and what various states would have interpreted it to mean:

“(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.”

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.”

But hey, rather than accept what the court and legal scholars have all determined to be the case, as well as the mountains of evidence that clearly supports this interpretation, and even the words of the Founding Fathers on the matter, perhaps we should just accept booger’s propaganda on the matter….not!

“Since the 2nd protects an individual right to own guns,and that’s not in dispute, it isn’t hard to extend that to arms for personal protection as opposed to only militia duty. Personal protection is generally considered a right in and of itself anyway.”

Exactly.

The second amendment protects individual rights to ”keep and bear arms” for use in the context of a militia, NOT for personal protection.

This is what Stevens and the other dissenters argued and why the ruling is likely to be overturned sooner or later.
I would agree that there is a natural right to self-defense as well as a natural right to possess firearms. But the second amendment wasn’t written to insure those rights and simply does not apply to them. As technology increases the lethality of sidearms, the issue is going to get tougher and tougher for the NRA to defend using culture-war resentments.

As was noted in Miller vs. US, that citizenry was fully expected to show up bearing THEIR OWN WEAPONS when called upon by the state.

Miller actually references Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840).

Miller:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

Aymette:
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html

Read Aymette. It makes the case that it is an individual right to own arms suitable for militia duty. I think Aymette/Miller is flawed in allowing the banning of arms for personal defense, and hence Heller is the better decision.

However, Aymette/Miller have the clear conclusion that banning “assault weapons” or machine guns is unconstitutional. Stevens poked at that, implying that an individual right would protect machine guns, but the majority opinion layed out an argument that suggests MGs can be banned while recognizing the 2nd as an individual right.

Just wanted to point out that the various levels of government do not have *rights*, only power that has been delegated to them by the people.

So, people have *rights*, government has *power*, but government – at least in this country, supposedly – only has the power that has been delegated to that government by the people.

Just thought I’d clarify at least where I’m coming from in the conversation….

LOL…I’m not too worried about lil booger, his grasp of facts is rather tenuous.

It’s interesting to speculate what would happen were the USSC to grant his fantasy and “reverse” the Heller decision.

Of course if that were to happen, the only way to accomplish that would be to state that there is in fact no individual right.

If THAT were to happen and idiots tried to ram through their agenda over the people who believe in the individual right, then lil boggyboy would have an opportunity to see what a real revolution would look like….I don’t think he’d really like it at that point.

Neither would I for that matter, but it would certainly settle the question of why the Founders felt the need to recognize the right to bear arms in a most elegant – though most likely very bloody – example.

One major problem I feel, is ol booger doesn’t really countenance that there is a sizable portion of the population that would violently resist such a government overreach.

He probably believes deep in his heart that everyone would just roll over and do as they are told….after all, that’s probably his inclination when he’s told to do something.