"Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has argued that Madison's real intent was not to guarantee all individuals a right to gun ownership, but to assure the states that the federal government would not disband their militias."
Bingooooooo!!!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/the-2d-amendment-does-not_b_2305361.html
And more:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-secondamendment.htm
To me, i is obvious what it says, did not haVe to go search what it means, because it is in PLAIN ENGLSH!
From the second link:
"Pro-gun advocates claim that this amendment guarantees their individual right to own a gun, and that gun control laws are therefore a violation of their constitutional rights. In fact, the term "violation of our Second Amendment rights" has become a battle cry in gun lobbyist literature, repeated everywhere in their editorials and essays.
However, this raises a fascinating observation. If gun control laws are so obviously a violation of the Second Amendment, then why doesn't the National Rifle Association challenge them on constitutional grounds before the Supreme Court? The answer is that they know they face certain defeat, for reasons we shall explore below. Consequently, the NRA has abandoned all hope in the courts.
Instead, the NRA has chosen to lobby Congress to prevent gun control legislation, and has become in fact one of the most powerful lobbies on Capital Hill. This is a supreme and exquisite irony, given the conservative and libertarian's love of constitutions and hatred of democracy. But, at any rate, the NRA is fighting for its perceived constitutional rights on Capital Hill, by bribing our legislators with millions of dollars in campaign contributions. "
The proof is in the pudding.
Again: THERE IS NO GURRANTEE TO INDIVIDUAL GUN OWNERSHIP ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!
If there is, the NRA should sue to remove ALL GUN CONTROLS. ALL OF THEM!
| 
