Dwayne StovallKonto zweryfikowane

1) the U.S. is a Union of States, not a monolithic “N”ation. 2) the States requested a BoR, which includes the 2A, to restrict only the federal; a fact known to anyone who’s read the ratifying debates. 3) nothing here suggests I don’t believe in Natural Rights. You lack logic.

If you claim States have Rights, which you did, then your position is that they exist by Right, and therefore possess authority by Right over the individual's they Govern. This is an athoritarian position that fails to reason where their authority is derived from.

It's common, as Henry described in 1788, to use the term State to refer to the citizens of a State. The States are sovereign, meaning the citizens of a State hold ultimate decision making power for their State. Thinking the fed is sovereign is authoritarian. You lack logic.

Since the Constitution protects citizens' rights to keep and bear arms and only those powers not specifically granted to the Federal gov't are reserved to the states as states' rights, the supremacy clause can be used to negate any effort by a state to "infringe" upon that right.

So what the ratifying States requested, what the first Congress provided, and what the supreme court upheld for over 135 years, is meaningless? What you espouse is a creation of modern progressive judges & is anti-Constitution. You are supporting centralized unlimited power.

You've lost the bubble, Dwayne. The constitution protects the bill of rights, and neither the federal nor state governments can legally enact laws that violate the constitution - and I'm a states rights advocate.