Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1. Religion
2. Free Speech and Press
3. Assembly
4. Petitioning for redress
4 rights, 1 amendment.
Just because there are other ways to defend oneself does not mean you can restrict self defense to just those forms and infringe the right to carry firearms. The opinion was very clear that the reference to the militia was stated only as to why the 2A was codified, not to limit the 2A to that sole purpose, and that self defense is in fact central to the 2A.
"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."
"It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense."
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."
The final quote below illustrates nicely that another object possible of self defense (in this case a long gun, but insert stick or brick or whatever) is not sufficient to enable a ban on handguns:
"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."
We are talking about 2A, NOT 1A. And the government already DOES limit arms based on the self defense theory. Based on the free state theory everything that the military has in small arms would be available to the people. Regardless if needed for self defense. In ten years when Hillary has appointed a anti gun justice to replace a pro gun justice firearm ownership by LAC will be GONE! It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. And all because people do not know how to read.
Other countries that allow firearms for SD, ALREADY limit gun ownership and carry much more than here. We have skated because of the 2A, because many understand it as it is written, and don't add into it. Once you go down that road, government, and the bench can read into it whatever they wish. As has already happened.
In State V Kerner the judge made it very clear what the right to bear arms meant in NC constitution. The NC amendment patterned after the COTUS on the right to bear arms. But this was before the rewriting of the COTUS by lobbyists with a pocket that needs to be filled.
From State V Kerner May 11, 1921 Because of this CLEAR ruling on the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, our right to carry openly is well protected, unless the feds use SD to remove those rights or severely restrict them. STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID. Or you will see the banning of firearms from your children's children forever.
"Among the other safeguards to liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A standing army is peculiarly obnoxious in any free government, and the jealousy of such an army has at times been so strongly manifested in England as to lead to the belief that even though recruited from among themselves, it was more dreaded by the people as an instrument of oppression than a tyrannical monarch or any foreign power. So impatient did the English people become of the very army that liberated them from the tyranny of James II that they demanded its reduction even before the liberation became complete; and to this day the British Parliament render a standing army practically impossible by only passing a mutiny act from session to session. The alternative to a standing army is 'a well-regulated militia'; but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. The federal and state Constitutions therefore provide that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
We know that in the past this privilege was guaranteed for the sacred purpose of enabling the people to protect themselves against invasions of their liberties. Had not the people of the Colonies been accustomed to bear arms, and acquire effective skill in their use, the scene at Lexington in 1775 would have had a different result, and when "the embattled farmers fired the shot that was heard around the world," it would have been fired in vain. Had not the common people, the rank and file, those who "bore the burden of the battle" during our great Revolution, been accustomed to the use of arms, the victories for liberty would not have been won and American Independence would have been an impossibility.
If our pioneers had not been accustomed to the use of arms, the Indians could not have been driven back, and the French, and later the British, would have obtained possession of the valley of the Ohio and the Mississippi. If the frontiersmen had not been good riflemen, particularly the riflemen from Tennessee and Kentucky, the battle of New Orleans would have been lost and the frontiers of this country would have stood still at the Mississippi.
In our own state, in 1870, when Kirk's militia was turned loose and the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, it would have been fatal if our people had been deprived of the right to bear arms and had been unable to oppose an effective front to the usurpation.
The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. It should be construed to include all "arms" as were in common use, and borne by the people as such when this provision was adopted. It does not guarantee on the one hand that the people have the futile right to use submarines and cannon of 100 miles range nor airplanes dropping deadly bombs, nor the use of poisonous gases, nor on the other hand does it embrace dirks, daggers, slung-shots and brass knuckles, which may be weapons but are not strictly speaking "arms" borne by the people at large, and which are generally carried concealed. The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds (p.225)of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the "arms," an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power--such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords, and pistols. These are now but little used in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as "arms," which they have a right to "bear."
