[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The Second Amendment itself grants the right specifically only to the people, but that right was granted by extension to the militia because it was composed of the people.

I think you are mistaken and the BORs granted rights to both individuals and the states and the 2A granted to both. I think there were two purposes at work when the 2A was written and the militia of the states were one and the individuals RKBA was the other. Heller clarified this and that is what Al meant when he said the miltia was no longer an issue with the individual right. I think you are trying to in a round about way come back to your views of the militia today which I thought we weren't going to rehash?

This has nothing to do with my views on the militia. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights guarantees any rights to the states. Amendment Ten mentions the state in that certain powers are delegated to it, but the amendment does not guarantee them any rights. Amendments One through Eight, in fact, specifically guarantee rights to the people rather than the states. The only rights guaranteed to the states in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed by extension through the people as it would be impossible to strip a state of rights such as speech, press, etc. without stripping the people of that state of their rights. No guarantee of a collective right (afterall, a guarantee of right to a state is a collective right) is necessary since an individual right extends into the collective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
So you disagree with the Judges opinion?

Do you understand the difference between dicta and law in a court opinion? His comments on terrorists were not the issue before the court and have nothing to do with the case. Webley, you have a tendency I have noticed to cherry pick comments from court cases that you think lend credence to your arguments that have no relavence to the issue. Anyway, I answered MP's question about the terrorist's threat. BTW the Nordykes lost.

I understand the difference, however since there is no precedent in law to guide us one way or the other, dicta is the best we've got. Considering the study that is typically necessary to become a judge, I take Judge Gould's interpretation more seriously than those of someone posting anonymously on the internet. With regards to cherry picking, I quote many of the same sources you do, however I typically quote more of their context so as to more fully illustrate their meaning. Also, I fail to see how quoting dicta from the case that is under discussion equates to cherry picking. I quoted this passage because it is representative of what Maestro Pistolero's question was about, a question which you answered in a very roundabout and unclear way.

Originally posted by Wildalaska

Quote:
A right is a natural thing that individuals possess. The right to keep and bear arms exists outside of any government entity.

Wrong. No rights at all exist outside of same being defined by government itself

Well, according to the Heller and Nordyke decisions, certain fundamental rights predate their enumeration by the Constitution.