Replacing white people to kill gun rights

[jimmy the one]

83. con artist in the surf

surf guru: Heller was 9-0 for the individual right view -- Breyer saying, "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right" . . . "

You are wrong, your deceitful manipulation becomes apparent. To try to hoodwink readers that heller was 9-0 for an individual rkba interpretation demonstrates either your duplicitous deceptive nature, or your misconception of what was actually written.
Surfer guru cites simply ONE of the 4 interpretations of 2ndA which exist today & noted by breyer, then surf guru misleads by leaving off the other 3 considerations, thus misleading that breyer was actually an individual rkba adherent:

Justice breyer in fuller context shows surfer guru for a charlatan: In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(Proposition) (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred;
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of forces.” United States v. Miller,(1939);
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller..
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897).

Yes, those are the 4 possible constructions & rulings today which 2ndA has morphed into. Note how scam artist surf guru only mentioned proposition 1 which is individual rkba friendly.
But Breyer was NOT contending he, nor the 'entire court' of 9 justices, considered 2ndA an individual righr. Surfer guru is an unethical spin doctor.
Justice Breyer, in proposition 1 above, was simply noting that the 2ndA when considered AS an individual right was ONE of the several 2ndA interpretations which exist.
Two other propositions breyer noted (2 & 3), described that the collective/militia interpretation also existed. These 4 propositions are what justice breyer meant when he said 'all justices could agree with' existed, and thus formed the basis for further debate.
In proposition 1, breyer was simply defining what the individual right was, note his usage of i.e. which means roughly 'in example': The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred; - this then became the basis for court discussion whether the 2ndA did indeed confer an individual right. But breyer was not contending propostion 1 was what the dissent adhered to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=117174
______________________________________________________________
surfer guru: The dissents also agreed that, "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” " so how can you argue with a straight face that Heller actually decided that question and that the dissents actually held that the right secured by the 2nd Amendment was "collective"?

.. despite your prolific erudite double double talk talk you are quite naive about this, & rely largely on twisting about what was written, or cherry picking out of context. Stevens is contending that a hypothetical 'conclusion' that 2ndA might convey an individual right, does not say how the individual right would be applied. He implies in later text that any individual right would be a right or duty to belong to a militia.

In fuller context, the dissent surf guru cites above: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

stevens later text: Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
The opinion the {Scalia/heller} Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; post-enactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.

The last emboldened sentence above, readers, is what the charlatan surf guru is doing as well - a feeble attempt using strained reasoning.
And of course the 1688/89 english 'have arms' decree from their bor established a militia based rkba for protestants, which scalia errantly referred to as an individual rkba (in heller).