35 years of gun sales, showing gun control's unintended consequences

[Surf Fishing Guru]

32. That sounds like confession by projection from you.

jimmy the one said:
So ridiculous it's been argued for 230 years as either full or militia centric to original intent in 1791, and until scalia via heller subverted 2ndA the militia rkba was largely accepted as the proper interpretation of original intent.
You are a pro gun sophist.
Weasel is kinda synonymous with sophistry.

That sounds like confession by projection.

jimmy the one said:
Guru clipped off the remaining part of the sentence, quelle surprise, for it debunked his own argument.
Here is the fuller sentence in context:

scotus 1886 presser quote: ... the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

Debunked? That part does not do what you think it does. All it says is the states are barred from disarming a state's citizens because those armed citizens are the same resource the federal government depends upon for its security. This explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called nowadays "states rights".

This is a vital point because SCOTUS says that mandate against states disarming its citizens exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment ("laying the constitutional provision in question out of view" ) because this federal enforcement of the citizen's RKBA against state action exists in two planes. It exists in the "prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers". That word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of our Constitutional Republic.

Because the Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a republican form of government, a power is thus granted by inference to keep that promise, to secure the continuance of our founding republican principles.

The republican government that the founders embraced and established has, as one of its most fundamental components, a mass of armed citizens; ("It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, . . ." as SCOTUS puts it).

The federal government then, in keeping that republican promise, can not allow any state to act in an 'un-republican' fashion, such as disarming the citizens. Understand also that the principle works both ways; the federal government can not act to disarm the citizens because the states rely on those same citizens and their guns, for their security. The 2nd Amendment is the redundant enforcement of that federal impotence to act against the armed citizens of the states.

And to speak to your mistaken proposition that Presser supports a "conditioned / qualified" RKBA, Presser makes it very clear that the right protected on multiple planes, by the "prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers", without reference to the 2nd Amendment, or the 2nd Amendment itself, does not belong to the states to preserve any state militia power.

If it did, the Court would have tested and applied your 2ndA's "militia right" scope and effect --supposedly only protecting state interests-- against the federal "prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers" that the Court shows works to bind the states, not testing the 2nd Amendment against Illinois' claimed militia power to require private citizens to obtain a permit for an armed march.

Your theory fails on all planes of Presser.

.