Here's what I think about the argument over the Second Amendment...

[eallen]

73. That is a right-wing argument that ignores the 14th amendment.

It was the case, in fact, that in the early days of the Republic, the Bill of Rights set no limits on state law. States censored speech. States established religion. States seized property without compensating former owners. The Bill of Rights was, as you point out, interpreted as solely restricting the federal government.

Fortunately, John Bingham, a radical Republican during reconstruction, pushed through the 14th amendment to the Constitution, one express purpose of which was to make the Bill of Rights a guarantor of actual citizens' rights, and not just a limitation on federal action. The courts didn't initially read it that way. Eventually, though, they came around.

That is why, today, the state of Texas cannot ban anti-Christian writings, and the state of Tennessee cannot establish Christianity as its official religion.

That also is why many on the far right hate the 14th amendment.

That also is why the 2nd amendment does indeed confer an right on individual citizens. The Supreme Court incorporated it into the 14th amendment in <i>McDonald v. Chicago</i>. You may not like that. I would point out that it is consistent with a century of 14th amendment jurisprudence, incorporating much of the rest of the Bill of Rights.