I just discovered that disagreeing with 2A might actually be illegal

If "the right of the people" is meaningless in the second amendment, must we not make the argument that is it therefore invalid in the first amendment, and that someone who honestly believes that the second amendment does not apply to the people therefore has no Constitutional protection of free speech, religion, press, or assembly? I think this is a good new approach to the everyday encounter with those types that want to cause some kind of trouble on the subject. It's one of those things that will catch them off-guard and leave them stammering for at least a moment before the phrase, " . . . but, um, uh . . ." comes out. I think the right of the people must mean the militia, which is of course the National Guard, right? So only people in the National Guard have any Constitutional rights, right? It doesn't apply to anyone else, of course.

Can we not enforce a law restricting freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly, if we can enforce a law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms as well? I thought the 13th amendment argument was an interesting one during the McDonald v. Chicago case, when Daly was actually arguing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states per the 14th amendment, (which was the entire purpose of the 14th amendment). If Chicago can deny the right to keep and bear arms, can we not re-institute slavery? Can we not jail political dissidents? People fail to see the idiocy behind restricting one right. It's a slippery slope of the worst kind.

Daly and others of his ilk view the 2nd Amendment as how it will further THEIR goals and no one else. It was much the same as in Heller. Their reasoning for the ban was that the 2A meant "militia" only and NOT individuals but when it was first ruled unconstitutional they tried to counter saying the 2A doesn't apply to them (DC) because they are not a state. So it was okay to use the 2A to ban them but when it didn't go their in court it didn't apply to them because they weren't a state? Whenever I have come across people who try the same old argument about it not being a individual right I always ask them "So when the Bill of Rights was written why is it that the 2A is the ONLY amendment that is not a individual right and all the others are?" Which is then followed by a lot of this

I always point that one out as well. Amongst the Bill of Rights, a document made to restrict what the government can do, there's a short passage right after what is considered the most important passage that's about what the government can do, and then another 8 about what it can't do. The logic train you have to follow to come to this conclusion is absolutely nuts.

I've always said emotion will win over logic almost every time which is how they come to their "conclusions". I take great pleasure it getting the little vein in their temples throbbing when I start picking apart their militia vs. individual argument as well as their whole reasoning for banning guns

XDFDE45 said:

I've always said emotion will win over logic almost every time which is how they come to their "conclusions". I take great pleasure it getting the little vein in their temples throbbing when I start picking apart their militia vs. individual argument as well as their whole reasoning for banning guns

Click to expand...

Not to go OT but I like it BEST when the Ears, neck, and face all turn red and the vein between the eyes starts to bulge!

emk said:

People fail to see the idiocy behind restricting one right. It's a slippery slope of the worst kind.

Click to expand...

Let's face it: Dally and his kind are long past being on a slippery slope. They've long since fallen off the cliff. It's just taking a long time before they smack the ground.