Can you be a Progressive Democrat and still the support the Second Amendment?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. I feel we've discussed this before but thanks the exchange

Scalia did write the opinion and AFAIK led the discussion but the interpretation that the right applies to individuals was shared by all 9 justices. From the Breyer dissent:

"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:

(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."

As I see it, all human rights are attributes of humanity innate in each instance of that humanity. In dealings with others and groups to which those others are a part, said rights may either be respected or not. It is fundamentally correct and good to respect the rights of everyone. Failing to respect rights is not a good act.

As it says in the Declaration, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Groups, for example governments and militias, do not have rights either apart from or greater than than members. The circumstances leading to the Declaration were a perfect storm of highlights for the founders to enable for them clarity on the nature of man and his rights and the relation of those rights to governments.

You suggest that the first half of the 2A was "dismissed". Your opinion, if I understand correctly, is that the RKBA exists solely for the protection of exercise by a militia. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.) From that I infer you see restrictions as comparable to government exercise of just powers like setting occupancy limits on venues for the safety of the people.

That is a lofty ideal but one which is counter to fundamental rights. The fundamental rights expressed in the Declaration are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My happiness is based largely on being able to provide for my family. My commitment to that is not up for compromise. I limit my risks to that end and I view that as my most basic duty. How is my liberty and my commitment protected by a government usurpation of rights needed a task for which I am most directly concerned and most basically suited?

Self-defense while a sad necessity is not evil. There is no need for a government to punish a crime with the death of the perpetrator but self-defense is not a punishment. The victim of an attack where the presence of serious danger is obvious does not attack as judge, jury and executioner. He acts to stop the attack and preserve his own life.

If I don't use the most effective means to protect my own life, aren't I just a little bit complicit if I am killed?

The right to life implies a right to self-defense. The 2A explains that the RKBA MUST be protected because the people must be relied upon for militia participation. The Constitution is a federal document. The union of the states are its focus. How exactly can one be fit for infantry duty apart from a basic skill at arms?

Does a federal protection of an individual right limit the exercise of that right to only its purpose noted? Justice Breyer does not (AFAIK) deny that A purpose of the RKBA is self-defense. He claims that that purpose is not afforded 2A protection.