The Second Amendment Was Never Meant to Protect an Individual’s Right to a Gun

[yallerdawg]

How the Supreme Court upended the well-established meaning of the Second Amendment.

Source: The Nation, by Dorothy Samuels

Since President Obama will be speaking to this matter for the foreseeable future, we should clarify what exactly the 2nd Amendment is - and what it is not.

In common with the other big rightward swerves by the Roberts Court, the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller was an aggressive exercise in mendacity. By upending the well-established meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court made the country less safe and less free. It did this under the guise of a neutral and principled “originalism” that looks to the text as it was first understood back in 1791 by the amendment’s drafters and their contemporaries.

Heller’s 5–4 majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, was less in sync with the founding generation than with the top priority of a powerful interest group closely aligned with the Republican right. The National Rifle Association had been waging an intense 30-year campaign to secure an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms by winning over members of the public, high-level politicians, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Mission, to an alarming degree, accomplished.

********

To grasp the audacity of what Scalia & Co. pulled off, turn to the Second Amendment’s text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To find in that wording an individual right to possess a firearm untethered to any militia purpose, the majority performed an epic feat of jurisprudential magic: It made the pesky initial clause about the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” disappear. Poof! Gone. Scalia treated the clause as merely “prefatory” and having no real operative effect—a view at odds with history, the fundamental rules of constitutional interpretation, and the settled legal consensus for many decades.

********

Then there was Scalia’s peculiar breakdown of the phrase “keep and bear arms” into its component words to argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to possess guns—even though, as Stevens pointed out, the term “bear arms” was most commonly used in the 18th century to describe participation in the military.

And let’s not overlook the most absurd thing, which Breyer tried to get at in a separately filed minority opinion: At a moment in modern America when more than 30,000 lives are lost to gun violence each year, and mass shootings are a common occurrence, the majority opinion relied heavily on a guesstimate (and a rotten one at that) of what the Second Amendment meant more than 200 years ago, with no common-sense balancing test taking into account the real-world consequences for today.

The complete story at: http://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/

[valerief]

1. And the 1st amendment was never meant to give corporations speech=money rights.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

Since corporations had been viewed as artificial persons for millennia, the debate over whether they should be afforded the same rights as humans had been raging long before the 14th Amendment was adopted. Thomas Jefferson had suggested explicit language to govern corporate entities, like requiring maximum life spans, be put into the Constitution. His stipulations didn't make the cut, however. And once the 14th Amendment was created, the Constitution actually expanded -- rather than limited -- the scope of corporations' power.

In the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court decided that only the state that charters a corporation can tax it. This decision upheld the long-standing custom in America of state governance of corporations. It's the state that grants a corporation its charter -- its license to do business -- and it's up to the state to tax and regulate the corporation.

But a note written by the court reporter at the heading of the decision went further than that. Although another, private note from the Chief Justice said that the court had purposely avoided the issue of Constitutional corporate protection, the reporter chose to make his own addition to the records. He noted that the court had decided that corporations are persons under the 14th Amendment, and as such are subject to the same protections under the law as anyone else.

And we know what Justice Roberts' court did with free speech.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. If a conservative administration decided that Democratic Underground, LLC had no 1A rights...

...would you acquiesce to that decision?

[Ghost Dog]

78. Presumably, real people post & discuss on this board.

I have yet to see here a post by the corporate entity you name.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. What about op-eds? Or endorsements, for that matter

[randys1]

54. You are a celeb! LOL you were quoted on Thom's show this week.

Assume you know this by now.

[elleng]

2. Thanks. We DO need to understand and appreciate history.

[X_Digger]

3. So the folks who intended a collective right went back to their respective states..

... and protected an individual right?

Hrmm..

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

[yallerdawg]

8. The "right" you are imagining...

exists nowhere except lawless states like Somalia and Northern Syria.

We restrict/infringe/question "arms" all the time.

[X_Digger]

11. Umm, no. The right exists, everywhere. That doesn't make any restriction impossible.

What, you think that because the first amendment protects the right to free speech that no restriction / infringement / question about speech is permissible????

That's a straw man, an argument that I certainly didn't make.

Now, with that out of the way, care to address what I actually wrote?

Why would the framers of the federal constitution and the bill of rights protect a 'collective' right, then go back to their respective states and say, "No, no, no- we meant it as an individual right!" Or in the case of some states, protect an individual right before the federal..

[Xipe Totec]

4. Being necessary to the security of a free State. How secure is a free state with armed nut jobs? nt

[Hoyt]

24. That's for darn sure. Remember the Cliven Bundy skirmish.

That clause may be as pertinent as the first clause.

[Nevernose]

34. Not if you're Scalia

Who began by analyzing the sentence from the end, before discounting EVERYTHING he ever said or wrote about jurisprudence, in an effort to give people more guns.

[ThoughtCriminal]

5. Regulation is essential to the 2nd Amendment's purpose

Background checks, training, and permits all seem reasonable for a well regulated militia as opposed to any yahoo who wants a gun.

"Well Regulated" does not just mean well equipped. It also means well trained, well disciplined and with a lawful chain of command.

The government can and should regulate what type of weapons are permitted. That is reasonable.

The government can and should regulate who is legally prohibited and enact regulations that prevent them from obtaining firearms. That is reasonable.

If the "militia" is not well trained, it is nothing more than a danger to itself, our nation and its citizens. This should be blindingly obvious.

If there is not a lawful chain of command, the so-called militia is just an armed mob, a dangerous pack of vigilantes, or an angry nut with a grudge.

[Docreed2003]

79. This x1000000

You made my point exactly!
The right is there, along with regulation. The two stand side by side and neither should be ignored.

[Ghost Dog]

80. Thanks for highlighting the "Well Regulated"

part, that's not there for no reason, obviously.

[Snobblevitch]

6. ...

"A balanced diet, being necessary for good health, the right of the people to eat fruits and vegetables, shall not be infringed."

[LittleBlue]

7. Then why is it a part of the Bill of Rights?

Emphasis on the Rights part. Why even enshrine that right into the constitution instead of a normal law if it wasn't meant to be a right?

How could it logically not be a right?

[yallerdawg]

12. Exactly!

A right granted a member of "a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of a free State" in a time of British war and other European threat, in a country leery of absolutism.

There is much logic in context.

[GGJohn]

14. How many fucking times does this have to be said,

The BoR doesn't grant rights, it's a restriction on the govts ability to curtail those rights.
Jeesus!!!
Don't they teach civics in school anymore?

[beevul]

20. Many times, apparently.

I don't know what it is, with all these people who claim this is constitutional or that is constitutional, who have no clue how our system of government, and rights, and powers, and laws, actually work.

Don't they teach civics in school anymore?

I too, am really starting to wonder.

[yallerdawg]

23. What you all want is semantics and debate.

A little history and common sense is unacceptable.

We cannot just read the Second Amendment. You have to explain it to us.

[X_Digger]

25. No, this is a fundamental aspect of our government that you seem to have missed.

And it forms the basis of all jurisprudence, legislative action, regulatory actions, civil and criminal actions.

The fact that people are so pig-ignorant about how rights work, and think that the government doles out rights like parents giving their kids an allowance-- that's what's unacceptable.

Fucking sad, is what it is.

[yallerdawg]

29. Word, words, words.

Meaningless gibberish.

You actually get away with this? This is a winning argument?

I missed "something" in school and this is all above my intelligence level?

I think a Third Grader could look at the Second Amendment and figure out when it starts "A well-regulated militia" has to have something to do with a well-regulated militia.

They don't teach you to ignore the words in the Constitution cause you don't like them. Unless your taking a class from Scalia.

[X_Digger]

31. Rights aren't granted by the bill of rights. Lets start there.

From the preamble:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Restrictions against whom? Abuse of whose powers?

[yallerdawg]

32. There you go!

First thing you want to do - toss out the Bill of Rights!

They're not rights! And rights don't apply to individuals. And militias are addressed in some other part of Constitution.

So, logically, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

[X_Digger]

33. Should I use smaller words? Smaller sentences? Limit my vocabulary?

The basic theory of rights that serves as the underpinning basis of our government is that all rights reside in we the people. We then cede allow the government to infringe some of them to protect them.

Here, here's a bit of text that you should recognize:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Now, where do rights originate? From the government? No. From the people? Bingo!

With me so far?

[yallerdawg]

39. When the governed...

in significant majorities clamors for more common sense gun restrictions, like no fly watch list bans for gun purchasing, background checks for all gun purchases to include gun shows, product liability for gun manufacturers, restrictions on types of guns and clips, types of ammunition, bans on concealed and open carry permitting - just these for starters - what is the simple, uncomplicated argument against this?

"I have a Constitutional right to own and carry guns!" No parsing or semantics.

But if you acknowledge that right doesn't exist in the Second Amendment, that right doesn't exist.

I do have a fundamental right to live, enjoy my responsible freedoms, and pursue my happiness. I do not concede any "right" for you to take that away from me.

[X_Digger]

40. *sigh* You missed it again, didn't you?

No rights 'exist' or are granted in any amendment.

Rights exist independent of the bill of rights, or the constitution.

Fuck, I can't make the words any smaller.

[GGJohn]

43. Give it up X_Digger, some people just don't get it or are intentionally obtuse. eom.

[X_Digger]

45. Apparently so. I have a bruise on my forehead from pounding it on my desk. n/t

[yallerdawg]

46. You do know this is a Democratic website.

I think "God is the author of my rights and he wants me to have guns " is a little too fringy even for far left Democrats, who may butt up with libertarians and anarchists, but are nowhere near a significant or impactful portion of Democrats, even on DU's GD: P!

You're pissin' in the wind with these "conservative, John Birch" arguments. When Democrats have the legal authority to restrict the damage being done to this country by Americans with guns, Democrats restrict!

Don't worry - you have due process against "the government" coming after your guns - "unreasonably."

[X_Digger]

50. Please go read a book on the Enlightenment. Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes.

Even Voltaire, though that's reaching a bit further back.

It's like trying to explain physics to an elementary school student.

If you don't understand the fundamental principles of how our government is set up, it's pissing in the wind to try to discuss policy and legislation with you.

[Augiedog]

48. How about this...the bill of rights is a set of instructions from the governed to the governors tha

that may not be ignored by those governors. These instructions were given by the states to the federal governors. The states demanded that they needed a militia to defend against the over reach of powerful federal governance. The 2nd amendment requires that society's members who may be armed in defense of the state must belong to the militia. This is simple contextual history. In convenient truths for gun nuts but there it is.

[yallerdawg]

53. Thank you, A'dog!

To be honest, I have no idea what they are talking about!

But you are clear as a bell - and on subject!

[beevul]

65. One minor problem with your theory.

One minor problem with your theory. A theory breaking problem, in fact.

The authorization of congressional power to call and discipline the militia was already a done deal, in the constitution, with the other authorizations.

The 2nd amendment requires that society's members who may be armed in defense of the state must belong to the militia. This is simple contextual history. In convenient truths for gun nuts but there it is.

That's a cute fantasy, but make no mistake, it IS a fantasy. The second amendment, like the other amendments contained within the bill of rights, exists to restrict government exercise of power. It was CREATED to restrict government exercise of power. It was INTENDED to restrict government exercise of power. The authors state as much right in the preamble:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

[Augiedog]

70. The bill of rights was promised to the states even though promulgated at a later date. No bill of

Rights guaranteeing states protection from a powerful federal government, no United States. It's a simple matter of who was concerned about what at the time. Has nothing to do with what anybody thinks today.

[beevul]

71. All incidental.

It's a simple matter of who was concerned about what at the time.

Its a matter of what they actually penned into binding law. No more no less. Their motivations at the time are historically interesting, but not the rosetta stone some seem to think.

[Augiedog]

72. I agree totally, thus my contention that the second amendment first must be recognized for what it

actually says. Then if we so choose, as a people, as a republic operating under democratic principles, change or eliminate the second amendment to meet the conditions of a contemporary society. The second amendment, all of the amendments, are ours and thus subject to today's wisdom. They are not some text inviolable. Tethering our children to some bizarre notion that mentally ill people may own military grade weapons is, to me, unconscionable.

[beevul]

73. Calling weapons 'military grade' that aren't, doesn't help your case. N/T

[Augiedog]

75. I'm sad you missed my point. If it helps, please ignore that last sentence. Better yet, ignore me.

[jmg257]

77. "members who may be armed in defense of the state must belong to the militia"

I *THINK you have it exactly backwards...the state Militias must have members that were armed (and well regulated), otherwise they would not be effective.

That is why each and every male between 18-45 (with some exceptions) had to buy themselves specific arms and accoutrements, and enroll in the militia.

At the same time, it doesn't make sense that all those the public workers and govt representatives that were exempt from militia service would give up ownership of arms.


"That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty..."


*peculiar wording so I'm not sure what you were saying.

[Augiedog]

81. Any perfunctory reading of post revolutionary history will provide the context in which the bill of

rights was promulgated. This was an era of Native American xenophobia and a time of even greater fear of slave uprisings. But the greatest intellectual fear, the most powerful fear was that of a king like federal rule. Some of that history included farmers assaulting government institutions after the war due to their farms being taken in mortgage defaults while they were fighting the war in defense of the very people who took their farms. These farmers came back armed and skilled in combat, a fearful combination for those who wanted to rule their states. History is never what we want it to be, but sometimes it matters why who did what to whom and why they did it. States then, just like today, want to be free of federal intervention and force. The bill of rights was a promised measure to alleviate those fears states had.

[Scootaloo]

76. I can think of a gesture that would be appropriate for that poster...

[beevul]

26. Is that what you call a general lack of understanding of the pertinent subject matter...

Is that what you call a general lack of understanding of the pertinent subject matter, semantics and debate?

A little history and common sense is unacceptable.

The problem, is that with you folks "a little history" means picking out the bits that support your position and ignoring the rest, and "common sense" with you folks, in my experience, is neither common nor sensible.

We cannot just read the Second Amendment. You have to explain it to us.

When you read the amendment as if it grants, or authorizes ANYTHING, then someone needs to explain it to you, because you're clearly obviously and blatantly reading it wrong.

[TeddyR]

19. Point me to the clause in the Second Amendment

That states the right to keep and bear arms "is limited to those who serve in a militia," or "exists only for militia members." And of course, the militia is every single person, not just military members. According to George Mason, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

[yallerdawg]

22. You lost me.

Why would this require a clause when it specifies the condition in the majority of the amendment?

It is all about 1790's militia! And the absolutism of the monarchism the colonies had just defeated.

Many, many people wrongly believe this "right" of the people to resist the tyranny of government is the basis of the "right to keep and bear arms."

You do know this is a liberal, progressive Democratic website, right?

[beevul]

28. Why would it specify the condition in the majority of the amendment...

Why would it specify the condition in the majority of the amendment, when its purpose is only to restrict government?

Furthermore, why would the framers place any condition at all on the militia within an amendment within a document, whos soul purpose was to restrict government, particularly when they had already authorized militia authority to congress in the constitution?

The answer is: They would not.

[Augiedog]

44. The militia is/was not the people...it excluded women, slaves and anyone who had self worth of less

than 50$

[jmg257]

74. Wait - so the militia was NOT "the people". But the people ARE the ones

who had their right to keep and bear arms protected.

So are you saying these, the people and the militia, are 2 different entities in the 2nd amendment???

[lame54]

37. unfortunately it is in the form of a...

horribly written sentence

[Kingofalldems]

9. Here they come.

[Orrex]

10. k/r

[Major Hogwash]

13. Wrong, this article is total bullshit and should be ignored.

Dorothy ought to get a real job because writing this sort of tripe doesn't pay.

[ThoughtCriminal]

16. You're wrong

See how persuasive that sounds?

[Eleanors38]

15. Get busy, Dorothy. Push for repeal or advanced degrees in grammar.

[EX500rider]

17. "The Second Amendment Was Never Meant to Protect an Individual’s Right to a Gun"

Riggght, that's why they put it in "The Bill of Rights" lol

If they wanted it to apply to just a militia they would have put it in ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15, you know, the Militia Clause...lol

[Rex]

18. Sure it does!

As long as they are part of a well regulated milita, those rights will not be infringed upon.

[smirkymonkey]

21. K&R

[jmg257]

27. Ah - the 2nd IS only for militia purposes? So we can buy M16s and M4s and M9 now?

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces {the militias}, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Wonder what they would have said if Miler was carrying a BAR instead of a SOS.

Would kind of make things like bans on simple assault weapons quite infringing, wouldn't it?

[iranianguy]

30. Metallica

Aswesome!

[beevul]

35. Awesome, is in the 'Eye Of The Beholder'.

Seems pertinent lately, anti-gun folks have for ages been saying "you can do it your own way, if its done just how I say".

[ErikJ]

36. " necessary to the security of a free State"

The #2 Amend now THREATENS the security of a free state.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. "The #2 Amend now THREATENS the security of a free state." Then stop complaining and get it repealed

The means to do so are available to anyone, all you need do is get enough public support.

[yallerdawg]

42. Michael Moore is right:

"Guns don't kill people. Americans kill people."

It's our Constitutional right?

[aikoaiko]

47. Hyperbole isn't a winning strategy for fun the pro-restrictionists

You don't know it but your helping the NRA.

[yallerdawg]

52. Supporting gun restrictions helps the NRA?

I know 2A fans have some twisted arguments, but this is a good one!

I suppose your saying Democrats fire up the Republican base with this issue?

Well, we'll have it right when we fire up the Democratic base! I'm there and waiting...

[pediatricmedic]

51. Can you find a graphic that shows suicide and homicide rates that include all methods?

Not just firearms.

[EX500rider]

64. See my post #63

[EX500rider]

63. What a BS graph....Japan has a suicide rate of 18.5 per 100,000...

........the fact that they don't use firearms to do it doesn't make them less dead somehow..

Japans suicide rate of 18.5 + murder rate rate of .3 = 18.8 per 100,000

US suicide rate of 12.1 + murder rate of 3.8 = 15.9 per 100,000

Who comes out ahead there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[yallerdawg]

66. Gun death rates are BS?

Here is a more relevant set, after common sense regulation and gun buyback programs:

The agreement banned semi-automatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns.

The laws were introduced when the Howard government responded to the Port Arthur massacre on April 28, 1996, when 35 people were killed by gunman Martin Bryant.

[EX500rider]

67. yes the US rate is also in a downward trend:

[yallerdawg]

68. Apples and oranges again.

Why is gun deaths just a statistical "anomaly" to discredit with 2A supporters?

What America is doing is just fine?

[EX500rider]

69. The US and Australia both having dropping homicides rates is not:

"Apples and oranges" but apples and apples.

And Taiwan's homicide rate is on a par with the US at 3 per 100,000 Vs 3.8 for the US. The fact that most of them weren't killed with guns doesn't make them less dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[former9thward]

49. President Obama disagrees with the OP.

Let me be absolutely clear. Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/remarks-president-and-vice-president-gun-violence

[yallerdawg]

55. And...

I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown. That’s what these reforms are designed to do. They’re common-sense measures. They have the support of the majority of the American people.

*******

This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty -- not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.

The only way we will be able to change is if their audience, their constituents, their membership says this time must be different -- that this time, we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.

[former9thward]

57. And ...

I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Completely opposite the OP.

[yallerdawg]

62. The article is about how we got here.

And the 'argument' opposing any gun control measures, even those supported by majorities of Americans.

Since parsing words and semantics seems to be the popular game regarding 2A...

"I believe..." is a matter of faith, not fact.

If, in fact, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to guns, which is the OP argument, then belief will not matter...and concerning the presidents position on gun reform, I wouldn't take any comfort in his "belief" when he at minimum considers gun ownership to be necessarily "well-regulated."

[ileus]

56. Everyone knows no a single gun was owned privately before the Heller decision.

[Photographer]

58. K&R! Keep it up.

[pipoman]

59. Yeah, the ridiculous claim that it isn’t about individual rigjts

Has been relegated to the dustbin of wrong thinking and twisted logic.

If it wasn't about an individual right it would have been:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

We had just finished fighting an oppressive tyrannical rule with weapons possessed by "the people".

[branford]

60. To anyone who believes the 2A doesn't protect an individual right to possess firearms,

know that your view is in direct conflict with the actual Platform of the Democratic Party. The position of the NRA is closer to the Democrat Party than you!

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Note further that the inability to pass gun control legislation currently has absolutely nothing to do with the 2A. Many suggested gun control policies, including UBC's and AWB's, will likely pass constitutional muster. They are not the law of the land simply because gun control lacks sufficient electoral and popular support in Congress and most states.

[Snobblevitch]

61. Does this mean that the

1st, and 3rd through 10th were all about the rights of the people as individuals but the 2nd was not?