How will the Supreme Court rule on the right to carry firearms they’re presented with a case? They already have, of course. Twice. In case you’ve forgotten . . .

In 2008, The SCOTUS ruled in Heller v. DC that the right to own weapons for personal defense was protected under the Second Amendment. Then, in 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, the SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore firearms rights are not subject to undue burden by state and local laws.

So, you ask, what does this have to do with carrying a firearm? The operative, declarative clause of the Second Amendment states, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The court held that “the People” was a clear indication of an individual right.

But, you say, Heller only ruled on the right to own firearms. That’s one way of looking at it, but the Heller decision was based on the Second Amendment, and McDonald established the Second Amendment was inviolate by state and local laws. To see how this impacts carrying a firearm, you need only do a little logical analysis.

The statement, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is a clear, declarative statement. Written in a logical form, the definition of “the right” would appear: Right = Keep + Bear. Another logical statement: 5 = 2 + 3. Anyone who has mastered grammar school math knows that if you modify one term of an equation, you must modify ALL terms of the equation.

Now, lets look at the Second Amendment. Right = to Keep + Bear. If “Keep” is an individual right, the equation looks like this: Right = (Individually Keep) + Bear. It should be pretty obvious this doesn’t work. To balance the statement, if the right to keep firearms is individual, the the right to bear firearms must also be individual.

Individual must apply to all terms of the statement. Therefore the equation would look like this: (Individual Right) = (Individually Keep) + (Individually Bear).

There’s a famous modifier built into the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed.” The courts have long ruled that placing an undue burden on the exercise of any civil right is the same as denial (infringement) of that right. So, by the Fourteenth Amendment, as noted by the McDonald decision, the Second Amendment, in its entirety, shall not be unduly burdened.

Class dismissed.

1. HOLE -EEE-Fv<K AND GORILLA NUTS PEOPLE. WHAT THE EVER LIVING F IS WITH THE MATH CALISTHENICS ? ? ?

THE LOGIC IS MORE SIMPLE AND PURE THAN EVEN THAT.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AFFIRMED AS AN

I N D I V I D U A L

RIGHT BY THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

IF YOU WISH TO REPLACE YOUR GOVERNMENTAL GUARDS TO YOUR SECURITY YOU DON'T HAVE TO 'SCARE UP' A COALITION ANY GREATER THAN 1. THAT 1 IS YOU.

THE THREE-PERS (3%-er crowd: https://www.thethreepercenters.org/) WILL LET YOU KNOW (WITHOUT YOUR FIRST ASKING) THAT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS FOUGHT BY AN EXTREMELY NARROW COALITION OF THE WILLING, AND THAT LITTLE MORE THAN 10% OF THE POPULATION OF THE 13 COLONIES WAS 'FULLY' SIGNED-ON AT ANY ONE POINT IN TIME. NO ONE EXPECTS YOU TO HAVE TO (ABLE OR NOT) TO HAVE TO GIN-UP ANY SUCH SUPPORT YOURSELF.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONVINCE ANYONE YOU'RE RIGHT, IF YOU AIN'T HAPPY YOUR OPINION (AND RESULTANT WILL AND ACTIONS) ARE JUST AS VALID AS A PLURALITY, MAJORITY, TOTALITY, OF THE REST OF US, AND YOU NEED TO KILL ALL THE MFS WHO CLAIM DIFFERENTLY. THAT'S WHAT WE PROMISED EACH OTHER AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, SO NO ONE SHOULD BE CAUGHT UNAWARES.

• (You have 4 minutes to edit unless there’s a pop-up ad)

HOLE -EEE-Fv<K AND GORILLA NUTS PEOPLE. WHAT THE EVER LIVING F IS WITH THE MATH CALISTHENICS ? ? ?

THE LOGIC IS MORE SIMPLE AND PURE THAN EVEN THAT.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AFFIRMED AS AN

I N D I V I D U A L

RIGHT BY THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

IF YOU WISH TO REPLACE YOUR GOVERNMENTAL GUARDS TO YOUR SECURITY YOU DON'T HAVE TO 'SCARE UP' A COALITION ANY GREATER THAN 1. THAT 1 IS YOU.

THE THREE-PERS (3%-er crowd: https://www.thethreepercenters.org/) WILL LET YOU KNOW (WITHOUT YOUR FIRST ASKING) THAT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS FOUGHT BY AN EXTREMELY NARROW COALITION OF THE WILLING, AND THAT LITTLE MORE THAN 10% OF THE POPULATION OF THE 13 COLONIES WAS 'FULLY' SIGNED-ON AT ANY ONE POINT IN TIME. NO ONE EXPECTS YOU TO HAVE TO (ABLE OR NOT) TO HAVE TO GIN-UP ANY SUCH SUPPORT YOURSELF.

AND NO ONE CAN DEFINE FOR YOU WHEN THE MOMENT WILL STRIKE YOU. (MAYBE WHILE DRIVING SOMEWHERE??? MAYBE AT THE SUPER MARKET ???)

WHO KNOWS WHEN AND WHERE YOUR GOVERNMENT MIGHT PRESENT ITSELF TO YOU AS YOUR GREATEST ENEMY AND MOST IMMEDIATE OPPOSING FORCE ? ? ? ?

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONVINCE ANYONE YOU'RE RIGHT, IF YOU AIN'T HAPPY YOUR OPINION (AND RESULTANT WILL AND ACTIONS) ARE JUST AS VALID AS A PLURALITY, MAJORITY, TOTALITY, OF THE REST OF US, AND YOU NEED TO KILL ALL THE MFS WHO CLAIM DIFFERENTLY. THAT'S WHAT WE PROMISED EACH OTHER AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, SO NO ONE SHOULD BE CAUGHT UNAWARES.

Apply your damn math to that. If someone wants to interdict your right IN ANY WAY. THEY ARE 100% AGAINST YOU AND YOUR RIGHTS ! ! !

• The problem is that the word “Citizen” does not appear until the 14th. Citizens have no rights, only privileges. Citizens were granted the privilege (it was INCORPORATED under the 2nd), but unless they disclaim their status as citizens of the City State of DC (which is what a “CITY-DENIZEN” is), they are presumed to be under a different jurisdiction.

Don’t like it? Repeal everything after the 10th, and for the love of everything holy, stop referring to yourselves as Citizens.

Words mean things.

• It is recited “the right of the PEOPLE”. . . [emphasis mine] to keep and bear arms.

The same PEOPLE (reaffirmed in history) of the GOVERNMENT “Of the People, by the People, for the People” [“It is, Sir, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law.”
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
American lawyer, politician, orator and statesman
Discussing the limitations of state’s rights and the supremacy of federal law in his “Second Speech on Foote’s Resolution” in the U.S. Senate, on January 26, 1830.

“We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
The closing words of his Gettysburg Address, delivered on November 19, 1863 (as recorded in the “Hay Copy” of the speech stored at the Library of Congress, one of five written versions)

http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2010/11/government-of-people-by-people-for.html

• So FLAME DELETED Rob Farago risibly claims that nature and/or some god have bestowed a natural right to spread AR-15s around, an idea that is pattently absurd on its face.

I simply pointed out that as usual he has zero understanding of the topic, that its extremeley complex as natural law refers to a huge body of overlapping thought in ethics, political theory and legal theory, and there are or course many nuances.

Now you excedrine stupidly insist with your barely literate ramble that: “It is actually an(sic) extremely basic as natural law really refers to a small body of simple principles constructed from a larger body of lived experience throughout recorded history.”

Heres a couple links to academic sites (what you term “fake news”) making clear that naturally as is always the case I am right and you are a FLAME DELETED (regardless of your boring nonsensical habit of repeating my words back to me, non-morons decide who is a dunsky and a facile propagandist and who is not based on the content of their posts, you may as well be saying “nuh-uh, you are”)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/

And non-gun-nuts understand that the solution to these mass shootings is certainly not to spread AR-15s around so we can shoot it out with mentally ill folks with ARs, and the delusion that nature and/or some god has given yall the natural right to do this remains a facile propagandistic claim.

I have spoken, do not contradict again : D

• Notice that I did not specify the body of the Constitution. I said the BOR. The wording is important.

The word “Citizen” does NOT appear in the BOR in the first ten Amendments.

As an aside, it’s interesting to note that George Washington was not elligible to hold The Office of President, since the earliest anyone could be 14 years a Citizen of The United States was July 4th, 1790.

• GunDoc, please. The documents were very obviously written to include current citizens. Don’t be a conspiracy fantasy fool.

• GunDoc is not a conspiracy fool.

Words mean things.

Why do you think cops and such don’t care when you assert your “X amendment rights” and just do whatever they want anyway? Because they aren’t enforcing the “law” as in constitution they are enforcing statutes which pertain to commercial law or maritime law or other such law structures.

Words such as “person” , “citizen” and such do indeed have legal meanings and they aren’t always or even typically what we *think* of when we use the terms in everyday speech.

Why do you think every statute has a bunch of definitions prior to the actual body of the statute itself? That’s because it’s going to define the terms used ahead of time and those definition need not be the same definitions of the exact same words when used in other statutes for other purposes.

It’s not conspiracy, it’s just the “legal” shell game that tyrants play with ordinary people to control them. Ignore it at your peril.

• So GunKnob your remark that Washington was not technically eligible to be president is not interesting as you claim, it is insignificant minutiae. Though to be fair it is the sort of wholly unimportant trivia that uneducated folks like you who “study” history typically focus on…

Erica Dunbar’s “Never Caught” exploring Washingtons attitude regarding his slaves generally and particularly Ona Judge who stole herself, ran away from our first slave master President is provocative and insightful and crucial…

We learn that President I-can-not-tell-a-lie repeatedly lied and violated the law and encouraged others to lie for his benefit, AND that Washington acted like a Mafia boss to try to retrieve his slave property.

For the seven years Washington had Martha and his secretary arrange an elaborate scheme of shuttling his slaves in and out of Philadelphia every six months to subvert Pennsylvanias abolition laws, and he instructed everyone to deceive the slaves and pretend it was random comings and goings. Washington also wanted to deceive anti-slavery politicians whose alliance he needed on other issues

Even though Washington had signed the Fugitive Slave Law in 1793, he instructed his slave catchers in both 1797 and 1799 to violate that very law and simply kidnap Ona Judge, not follow the law and bring her before a magistrate, and his stated purpose in doing this was to deceive the public so as not to publicly embarrass himself.

Washington instructed his second slave catcher in 1799 to tell Ona Judge any lie to trick her into returning.

AND most disturbingly when Ona Judge was not hoodwinked by his lying he threatened that he might do something bad to her family and friends still enslaved by Washington if she failed to return!

Now THAT is interesting, a little bit of an antidote to the typical American Exceptionalist hagiographic treatment of early US political elites

Its written by what yall call a “nagger gal” though so maybe not the best stocking stuffer for your ilk

• The word “citizen” appears several times in the body of the Constitution, but I believe you are right, this is the FIRST time it appears in the Amendments, yet it *is* still important. Even if your are right in all of your assertions, the 14th Amendment changes all of that. That is what amendments *do*; change things.The 14th Amendment defines citizens and limits constitutional protections to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”, or briefly, citizens. Under separate laws, foreign nationals with immigrant status are extended constitutional protections..

• Joe R. is right. (Man that feel’s strange to type).

What’s more, if you’re going to try to use math to prove something, use it properly.
The court (correctly) held that the second amendment protects individual rights. The second amendment includes the right to keep arms as well as the right to bear them. Both are individual rights. No terrible math analogies required.

The idea that two polynomials couldn’t have conflicting indeterminates is irrational (math pun!).
f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c

• AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh !!!

They said that there’d be NO MATH !!! (Not even word problems)

+ Great clip.

2. Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

• … Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, …

Actually, there are. The restrictions are very narrow but they relate to both content, time and place of the speech or assembly.

You can’t slander or defame someone, publicly. It’s not criminal but you are exposed to civil liability. The news media actually have more latitude here than most of us. They’re special.

You can assemble peaceably but not in the middle of an interstate, at least not without a permit.

You can say almost anything you want but not necessarily at any time, or place, or AT ANY VOLUME!! You can’t stand outside somebody’s house in a residential neighborhood with a bullhorn @3:00 AM ranting about whatever you want to rant about. That’s disturbing the peace.

• Nothing you listed is an infringement on the 1st amendment. You’re free to say whatever you want, but you may be civilly liable if your speech causes someone else harm.

• I never said they were infringements. Why are you arguing with me? The word I quoted and use was “restrictions”. Pay attention.

• You can make the 1A and 2A comparison even easier:

“…..the right of the people to keep and bear tongues shall not be infringed.”

• Note that he put “restrictions” in quotes, which indicates he is not using the word in its normal meaning but the way someone else used/uses it, in this case anti-gun folks. To apply that meaning to the First Amendment would require background checks for reporters and publishers, word limits for articles, and limits on what may be discussed; also background checks to be allowed to go to church, government licensing for preachers and other church workers with limits similar to the above, and a new government agency, the Bureau of Words and Communications, which of course would require a form 66673 before any article or sermon could be approved.

3. Nothing is ever that simple.

You wonder why there’s confusion? The 2nd Amendment, as written, didn’t apply to the states for the first 232 years of the country’s existence. The 2nd Amendment prohibited the FEDERAL government from restricting arms, but it didn’t say anything about the States. This right was not conferred onto the general population until 2008, when it was “incorporated” against the States.

So as of now, just in the last 10 years, it does mean what it says: the individual person is guaranteed to be able to keep and bear arms. But there’s 232 years of disputation and inertia that needs to be overcome.

We really need Ginsburg, Sotomayer, and Kennedy off the court, and a definitive 7-2 (or 6-3) ruling that says that, clearly and distinctly. Until then, there will continue to be arguments, confusion, and differing interpretations.

• The current Constitution was signed in 1787, and ratified (by majority) in 1788. The first 12 Amendments essentially came along a year later

“On September 25, 1789, the first Congress of the United States adopted 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution–the Bill of Rights–and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments were ratified in 1791. In November 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government threatened to sever commercial relations with the state.” [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-signed].

The 14th Amendment was only taken up because there were too many MFs back then trying to F with the Constitution.

• Smoe you are the typically ignorant and puerile mentality of the NRA ilk.

For one thing “The History Channel” is not a credible source, they are a commercial sight broadcasting popular history aka mythology for profit. And I cant even guess what the point of your quote is…

More importantly the point of the 14th amendment is to force the states to acknowledge that black folks have the same rights as any other citizen, because in 1868 without federal troops occupying the South vicious racist southerners would have continued treating black folks like animals/plows. Again I cant even guess what your point is: “The 14th Amendment was only taken up because there were too many MFs back then trying to F with the Constitution.” At the end of the war the 13th amendment did the obvious namely abolished slavery, but prior to that there was no amendment for over 60 years so…

You really are some kind of moron, aka a Gump acolyte, one of the 71% of dumb white guys who put this Sump in office, someone who knowledge of history is at your level since he thinks Frederick Douglas is still alive and doing a great job… course you probably dont even know anything meaningful about Douglas if youve even heard of him…

• Wackyblacky, get back to me when you’re equal. All you gotta do is belive brother, we’re all waiting on you.
P.S. – don’t raise your kids to believe that they gotta ask for equality.

• Actually Mr. Williams, Joe R. is correct.

The constitution was created in secret by an illegal cabal of men. Congress had the power to change the government by the will of the people, the committee that created the constitution was not Congress. And furthermore, the BOR was NOT in the original document. They specifically had to be added because the states started freaking out when word got out at what kind of government it was creating. I suggest you read the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers to see the back and forth between those like Hamilton (federalist) who wanted a strong national central government and were thus pro-constitution vs. those like Patrick Henry (anti-federalist) who were extremely suspicious of and not wanting any new form of government that would consolidate power into the hands of a few.

And as for the racists. You should read more real history and not the white-washed history that you were fed in government run school. The abolitionists in the North were a very small (and hated) group. Probably less than 200,000 total. They were just very vocal. The Northerners treated blacks just as bad if not worse than the South. The war between the states was not just about slavery. Slavery was basically used as a pawn by Lincoln to further his own causes. Note that the Emancipation Proclamation was basically null and void and useless. It did not emancipate any slaves in Northern held states or territory, it only “freed” slaves in confederate lands in which it had no lawful jurisdiction. It was merely a ruse, or as Lincoln put it: “a war matter”.

For a primer I suggest: “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” by Thomas DiLorenzo.

• So The Punisher James McPherson’s “Battle cry of freedom : the Civil War era” is the preeminent scholarly treatment of that war, and its one of nearly 2 500 actual history books written by actual historians about the war, not neo-Confederate economist jokers like your man DiLorenzo : D

McPherson’s tome is daunting and yall racists would find it distastful anyway. More accessible though is his review addressing your neo-Confederate delusions about the war.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/04/12/southern-comfort/

• “History textbooks used in New York City during the president’s (Trump’s) childhood called the Klan “patriotic,” and downplayed the role of slavery in “the War Between the States.””

Whoa! Heres an article that explains a lot about Stumps racial coding on the campaign trail and racist appointments, disturbing for decent folks… naturally yall racists will lament that those racist history books were replaced, these are still the kind of racist history books yall enjoy : D

• Thanks The Punisher for highlighting your racism and lack of education by recommending a book of neo-Confederate mythology about the Civil War, a supposed history book written by someone who is not an historian!

I appreciate the recommendation but Im already well aware of the pantheon of neoConfederates and their various racist books, magazines, sites etc desperately pretending that the slavocratic Souths overwhelmingly preeminent motivation was anything other than perpetuating slavery. Decent people keep an eye on these racists cloaked in suits and degrees at sites like this (folks like you might go there to find gift ideas for your Civil War buff buddies : D) https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2004/ideologues

And let me help you with a point of logic. The reasons the North fought the war tell us nothing about the Souths overwhelmingly preeminent concern namely perpetuating slavery. These are separate questions. I realize it isnt only that youre too stupid to grasp this on your own, but that am radio style you want to ignore this indisputable evidence that the Souths overwhelming preeminent concern was perpetuting slavery and change the topic, and again am radio style attack the North

• This States Constitution declares ” the right of the people to bear arms for protection of life and property shall not be infringed, it attained State hood in 1854, so I’m confused about the until 230 years

• All amendments that declared rights of the people did apply to the States and local governments. Just because the states and local governments ignore that fact does not make it not so. To what system of courts do you think the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments applied? When at the time they were written the only federal court that existed was the Supreme Court. Why do the States and local governments ignore people’s rights? Because people who obtain a position of power and authority don’t like being told something is NOT within their power and authority. Like most people they will try to get away with whatever they can get away with, and will only obey the rules when they are nailed to them. That is why it is so very important for everyone to read the Constitution, the Amendments, and the Declaration of Independence. So that the people know the rules their governments are supposed to follow, know what their rights are (at least what the declared rights are), and know that RIGHTS are inalienable God given (or human if you prefer) Rights.

• Actually, the 2nd Amendment WAS one of the reasons for the 14th Amendment. Most southern states, following the Civil War. I would point you to Stephen P. Halbrook’s excellent historical review, “Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876”
From the publisher’s blurb…
Whether newly-freed slaves could be trusted to own firearms was in great dispute in 1866, and the ramifications of this issue reverberate in today’s gun-control debate. This is the only comprehensive study ever published on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and of Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, this is the most detailed study ever published about the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate and to protect from state violation any of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, even including free speech. Paradoxically, the Second Amendment is virtually the only Bill of Rights guarantee not recognized by the federal courts as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Through legislative and historical records generated during the Reconstruction epoch (1866-1876), Halbrook shows the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and of civil rights legislation to guarantee full and equal rights to blacks, including the right to keep and bear arms.

• I am so sorry but as usual your source is not legitimate, Halbrook is not a historian, hes a philosopher and a lawyer, a lawyer and a shill for the NRA, and hes published a handful of books bizarrely skewed toward NRA concerns.

Thats why Halbrook is the only one to write about the relationship between the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment, because its of no interest to serious people, and the import and actual significance of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments have received attention from countless historians not of who found the 2nd amendment to be at all relevant, there are a mountain of scholarly treatments of Reconstruction and none of them document any of Halbrooks nonsense…

Just out of curiousity I checked how many works on Reconstruction at my university library, 5624… 5624 legitimate studies that you dont cite, havent read and will never read… and one whackadoodle book by an NRA shill who you stupidly promote as the preeminent and suigeneris contribution… too silly, you rubes crack me up : D

• I just hate it when people make assumptions and form baseless opinions about people they don’t even know. It only goes to point out what a racist THEY are. You don’t know me from Adam’s housecat, yet you KNOW I am a racist? You are the sort who give black people a bad name. Everyone is your enemy, because that is how YOU choose to see them, whether they are or not. Fortunately, I know from experience you are not typical, so I will judge no one else on your ignorance.

• I referenced Halbrook because I thought people might actually read it and learn SOMETHING, rather than reference something they would never read, learning nothing.

• Sorry about your revisionist history: the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically stated to be for the purpose of making sure the Second applied to the states when it was introduced in Congress. Halbrook is just expounding on something that’s right there in the record.

• And not that any of you ignorant racists have any interest in that early hopeful era of black folks struggling for their rights but the preeminent survey(not review as you ignorant term it, a review of course reviews a scholarly treatment) is Eric Foner’s “Reconstruction : America’s unfinished revolution, 1863-1877”

• Of course… It is always possible you are a WHITE racist, posting this racist spew to discredit Blacks…

• Yo Robbie boy, do the world a favor and kill yourself, people like you are the reason America is so FU–ED UP !!!! The only racist I see on this site is YOU !!!!

• Listen you jerk, I grew up in the south in the sixties. Schools were integrated here when I went into the 6th grade. The first day of school, I got my ass whipped because I was white. I never said a word to anyone to cause it, it was “just cos”. By Christmas, things had settled down. Eventually that young man became a friend of mine. I did not let what happened affect me. I completely rejected the narrative of my time and place and paid the price. As I went through school, I had as many black friends as white. I joined the Army. In my first assignment, I met a warm, intelligent, kind, drop dead gorgeous black woman. We fell madly in love, married and had 2 beautiful daughters.For the first 2-1/2 years life was beautiful, both in New Jersey where we were married, and in North Carolina, where my first daughter was born. Then I got transferred to Washington, DC. My life went to hell. I can’t prove it, but I have good reason to believe my 1st Sergeant was KKK. He also had a personal goon squad. My car was destroyed and there was an implied threat to the safety of my wife, my child, and myself. NOBODY would do anything about it. After a year of insults and veiled threats, I broke under the stress and and lost pregnant wife, my daughter, and my career to violent, destructive racism. Did this change my attitude? HELL YES! There is NOTHING I hate more than racism, from anybody, for any reason. You ignorant ass, don’t you ever DARE to call me a racist again!

• Dave H how do you feel about the mods constantly removing my posts and muzzling me?
I reckon this site is a disgrace with zero respect for the 1A, even more intolerant of criticism than the Adams administration, too afraid to let my substantive challenges to their dogma be heard… yall better get yer guns cuz that totalitarian mentality you say your guns are protecting us from already exists right here on this bully site! : D

• Dave_H I want to help you some more and point out that having as many black friends as white in school, and having a special sex friend who is black of course does not magically cleanse you of racism; everyone by virtue of being immersed in a racist society from infancy inevitably internalizes white supremacist delusions as I documented for you in those linked studies.

No amount of black friends or lovers or having children with black folks is somehow going to magically change that; its an ongoing struggle against unintentional racism and your pretending that you have magic powers to filter out race in your interactions means you are not doing any work on yourself on this front.

And given your reflexively and nonsensically repeatedly slurring me as a racist when I point out how perverse and bizarre it is for you to discuss the 14th amendment as if the important aspect of it is its relationship to the 2nd amendment, and then to stress and shout that the 14th amendment doesnt even talk about black citizens but instead “ALL CITIZENS” as if this is somehow a crucial or interesting point, and then to reiterate that I am a racist, and now this foolish riff off the stereotypical racists retort “I cain be no racist cuz I got me sum gut black friends, yessir” as if your black friends from school and your special black friend you had kids with is some kind of magic no-racism-in-me card, all this in conjunction with your absurd delusion that you have supernatural powers to be color blind means you have A LOT of work to do on yourself…

Good Luck : D

• As for point 3 Dave_H let me give you just a handful of examples from the mountain of evidence from both the world and the lab indisputably documenting that you and all the other white folks care deeply and viscerally whether someone is black or white, that you TREAT Americans profoundly differently depending on their race, regardless of what you SAY.

Black unemployment has been double white unemployment for several decades

The median black family’s wealth is 1/13th that of the median white family’s wealth
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

Employers evaluating Identical resumes invite the ones with black names to interview 50% less than the same resume with a white name!
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Unarmed black folks are significantly disproportionately shot by the police
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

When subjects are faced with suspects variously white armed, white unarmed, black armed, black unarmed and given a split second to decide whether to shoot, they more often mistakenly shoot the unarmed black suspect
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/bernd.wittenbrink/research/pdf/cpjw07.pdf

And this from the first paragraph of the linked study:
“The stereotype of Black Americans as violent and criminal has been documented by social psychologists for almost 60 years (Allport & Postman, 1947; Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002; Devine, 1989; Duncan, 1976; Greenwald, Oakes, & Hoff- man, 2003; Payne, 2001; Sagar & Schofield, 1980). Researchers have highlighted the robustness and frequency of this stereotypic association by demonstrating its effects on numerous outcome variables, including people’s memory for who was holding a deadly razor in a subway scene (Allport & Postman, 1947), people’s evaluation of ambiguously aggressive behavior (Devine, 1989; Duncan, 1976; Sagar & Schofield, 1980), people’s decision to categorize nonweapons as weapons (Payne, 2001), the speed at which people decide to shoot someone holding a weapon (Correll et al., 2002), and the probability that they will shoot at all (Correll et al., 2002; Greenwald et al., 2003). Not only is the association between Blacks and crime strong (i.e., consistent and frequent), it also appears to be automatic (i.e., not subject to intentional control; Payne, 2001; Payne, Lambert, & Jacoby, 2002).”

OK, so this is reality, and right now you are desperately trying to concoct some excuses why all of this evidence is “fake news” or somehow doesnt apply to you, instead being a big boy and facing reality… and of course if you want to pretend this away, you wont be alone, many white folks llike you pretend they are color blind, just as most white folks when asked if racism is a significant problem say no. But as you see from my last citation this is just a tiny sample, there are countless studies and real-world metrics in all areas of life documenting this racism in America.

• FearMy, I thought about it and you’re right — I treat black folks here differently than I do whites.

I treat them better, because I find it wonderful that we’re finally getting some diversity around here. After being on a college campus for a half dozen years where the variety of skin color was wide, having a large white majority around seems just wrong.

Though sometimes my motive includes pissing off the white supremacist gang(s).

• Thank you Dave H for highlighting your racism with that tired racist canard of nonsensically/absurdly smearing anyone as racist who discusses the indisputably documented reality of the ongoing history of race and racism in America.

Another obvious barometer of your racism is your response to my buddy Professor Manque being repeatedly slurred as a “monkey” and a “macacaque” and told he speaks “ebonics” etc and no one corrected these overt racists who regularly post here and are known to everyone, and no mods corrected the posts nor chastized the poster.

Get real, youve been posting here for a lot longer than me, Ive been here only a week and already it is absolutley clear this is a site welcoming to overt racists, as well as more subtle racists like this guy who just lauded and recommended a book on the Civil War written by a well known neo-Confederate, a racist documented on hate-group monitors such as the unimpeachable Southern Poverty Law Center, and this racist post too denying the primal, central role of slavery to the South will stand uncorrected.

So please find another pose, your indignant posturing as if Im imagining things is belied by the surrounding posts… and if you ask me nicely Ill teach you something about racism in the world, Ill show you the evidence babay : D

• And Dave H my opinion of you is of coursed not baseless, its based solely on your post which treats the 14th amendment, one of the life changing earth shattering moments for black folks, a joyous event in black history, as if an important part of it is the right to own guns…

… Thats what you want your fellow racists to LEARN, thats why you recommend a book not by an historian but by a philosopher and lawyer for the NRA, an NRA shill all of whose book are bizarrely skewed toward NRA concerns

Meanwhile over 5 500 scholarly treatments by legitimate historians sit in my library about Reconstruction none of which are recommended by racists like you and this site. Youre right about no one would read them, yall only read neo-Confederate mythology masquerading as history as I mentioned above…

• Well… This shows just how far off base and twisted your thinking really is if that is your take on my post. I offered that as proof that the 14th Amendment incorporated the 2nd Amendment from the beginning. My point had only that to do with Blacks. My point was that the 14th Amendment protected all citizens (as specified in the 14th Amendment) from denial of constitutionally enumerated, protected rights. I don’t CARE whether you are Black or White, only that you are AMERICAN. The 14th Amendment states, “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I don’t see race mentioned at all, just “ALL CITIZENS”. If you you can twist what I have said to believe it is racist, it just, again, shows your own racist mindset.

As for Professor Manque, I never mentioned his name. I simply said that probably, no one here would read his work. This is a firearms forum. It is only reasonable to believe they will read the work of someone they are familiar with, and probably not read someone they have never heard of.

• Owning guns was a MAJOR part of the reason for the Fourteenth Amendment — specifically black folks’ guns, because the whites in the South at that point had invented the “militia’s right” interpretation of the Second Amendment so they could disarm blacks — because only whites were allowed in the state militia.

Besides that, to say that the Fourteenth was about “all citizens” states exactly why it was important: it told whites that there was no difference. Martin Luther King Jr. referenced that with his dream that no one would see race at all someday.

• And Dave_H let me explain to you how it sounds, why its offensive and hurtful when you inexplicably stress that the 14 amendment says nothing about black citizens but only about “ALL CITIZENS”

You see the context is that the 13th(1865), 14th(1868) and 15th(1870) amendments are out of this world victories for black folks, a chance to be treated like some semblance of human beings! The 13th ended white supremacist chattel slavery, and if you were writing about it you would presumably perversely stress that it doesnt saying anything about black slaves but only “SLAVES”, but of course everyone understood who had suffered and who were now being protected by law. Likewise the 15th amendment made invalid Black Codes (laws passed by the former slavocratic South immediately after the war to continue treating black folks like animals)and guaranteed black folks the right to vote, and again you would presumably bizarrely highlight that it says nothing about black folks only “CITIZENS”, but again everyone of course understood who had been deprived of the franchise and who were now being protected by law.

The same is true regarding the 14th amendment, it was black folks of course who were deprived of citizenship, it was black folks being dehumanized that spurred the passage of the 14th amendment guaranteeing them citizenship, so why in the world do you find it interesting or important to shout out that the amendment says nothing about black citizens only “ALL CITIZENS”?

Sincerely you should spend some time mulling that over, not to answer me (I already know why), but to figure it out for yourself…

Yet in the next sentence (in a perverse echo of the racists retort to “Black Lives Matter!” namely “All Lives Matter”) you feel its important to stress that black citizens arent even mentioned in the 14th amendment, only “ALL CITIZENS”!

I don’t see race mentioned at all, just “ALL CITIZENS”. If you you can twist what I have said to believe it is racist, it just, again, shows your own racist mindset.

• Youre right ThePunisher youre contrived segue is nonsensical, JoeR post doesnt agree with your ramble, in fact JoeR post never say anything, hes a donkey and at best is right twice a day like a broken watch : D

• Thank you racist Wackyblacky for your racial racist racism, and thank GOD you are not from here.

You hate US cause you ‘A-NUS.

• Joe R. what is your point?

“The 14th Amendment was only taken up because there were too many MFs back then trying to F with the Constitution.”

At the end of the war the 13th amendment did the obvious namely abolished slavery, but prior to that there was no amendment for over 60 years so what is your point?

• Joe R. what is your point?

“The 14th Amendment was only taken up because there were too many MFs back then trying to F with the Constitution.”

At the end of the war the 13th amendment did the obvious namely abolished slavery, but prior to that there was no amendment for over 60 years so what is your point?

• Joe R. what is your point?

“The 14th Amendment was only taken up because there were too many MFs back then trying to F with the Constitution.”

At the end of the war the 13th amendment did the obvious namely abolished slavery, but prior to that there was no amendment for over 60 years so what is your point?

• Joe R. what is your point?

“The 14th Amendment was only taken up because there were too many MFs back then trying to F with the Constitution.”

At the end of the war the 13th amendment did the obvious namely abolished slavery, but prior to that there was no amendment for over 60 years so what is your point?

• TexTed, you miss the key issue: back then it didn’t need to be incorporated against the states because no one in their right mind conceived that a state had any authority to infringe a God-given right or would ever attempt to do so. Further, the Fourteenth was meant to apply against the states from the start, being one of the main reasons for the amendment in the first place: to put an end to the racist militia idea that only members of the state militia may be armed.

In essence the Fourteenth was an assertion of liberty against the states, repairing the original compromise that left certain human beings defined as less than human and restoring and enforcing the declaration that all men are created equal.

4. It is annoying the Roberts court didn’t make clear in the Heller decision that the right to keep also inferred the right to carry.

It is much more annoying considering the Court nearly immediately had to make clear to the city of Chicago as they did in the McDonald decision that yes, Heller means you as well, Chicago.

It would have been nice if the court could have realized by their need to decide on McDonald the kinds of bullshit games Chicago fully intends to play with the 2A and make clear at the time that “and bear arms” meant lawful citizens could carry in public as well as own in their own homes.

But, Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

We’re gonna have to do it the hard way, via SCOTUS sometime in the next few years. I hope the keepers of the faithful flame of freedom maintain a stream of legal challenges in the pipeline until the court balance changes.

As far as Kennedy hopefully retiring this time around or any of the other Leftists dropping dead, I can only wait, like Carly Simon, anticipating :

• Scalia wrote Heller, not Roberts. And Scalia also commented (which comments are technically not binding) that “bear” meant to carry, i.e., to carry arms. But that question was not directly raised or addressed by the opinion. Further, as the anti-gun circuits have demonstrated, there is an open question as to the extent to which “bear” can be regulated in the public interest, holding that “may issue” laws are valid exercises of the state’s power. The Ninth went so far as to rule that there is no right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed firearms, a case that really should have been taken up by the Supreme Court but was not. It further refused to decide whether there was a right to openly carry firearms, and has yet to hear oral argument that raises the issue in a very narrow context, i.e., whether there is a right to carry in urban areas not within a Gun Free School Zone. (California banned all open carry for regular citizens in urban areas while the concealed carry case was pending.) Folks are taking bets as to whether the Ninth will grudgingly recognize the right, but further conclude that it can be regulated out of existence (via the open carry ban “in the interest of public safety”), or will reverse and allow the state to go back to the even more than useless (if not outright dangerous) “open unloaded” law that was in effect from 1968 to 2013.

• My error, I was referring to the court as the Roberts Court, as he was chief justice at the time. (And still is. Currently.)

“Folks are taking bets as to whether the Ninth will grudgingly recognize the right,…”

Any estimate on when the 9th decides one way or another on that carry case?

“It is annoying the Roberts court didn’t make clear in the Heller decision that the right to keep also INFERRED (my emphasis) the right to carry.”

So GeoffPR one way to spot a doofus, an uneducated clown trying to disguise his lack of education by littering his childish writing with vocab words is that he uses the less common “infer” ignorantly thinking its a synonym for “imply” and that its being unusual will render his remarks an aura of eruditon : D

So you know what “imply” means, to make an indirect remark which suggests something.

But “infer” works in the opposite direction, if someone makes an indirect or unclear remark we can decide that she is implying something, and this would be an instance of us inferring something.

Arent you going to thank me for remedying your ignorance?

I cant believe you dont take me up on that offer of a top ten list of worldview changing books that would force you to expand your vocab naturally instead of this pointless artificial thesaurus trawling : D

• So GeoffPR one way to spot a doofus, an uneducated clown trying to disguise his lack of education by littering his childish writing with vocab words is that he uses the less common “infer” ignorantly thinking its a synonym for “imply” and that its being unusual will render his remarks an aura of eruditon : D

So you know what “imply” means, to make an indirect remark which suggests something.

But “infer” works in the opposite direction, if someone makes an indirect or unclear remark we can decide that she is implying something, and this would be an instance of us inferring something.

And now Ill tell you a secret, dunskies like you imagine that smart people simply use lots of words dumb folks dont know, and you figure you can (half) learn a lot of words and pointlessly insert them in your remarks and people with think youre smart : D

In fact they way it works is as I encounter more complicated material with multiple factors interacting in confusing ways, and increasingly complex and nuanced theory my vocabulary necessarily expands to accomodate this more difficult information and subtle theory…

So my advice is stop reading the thesaurus and ask me for top ten reading list which will introduce you to some worldview changing ideas and naturally in the process you will learn some new words to grapple with these fascinating new ways of looking at the world…

My Gawd, what an opportunity this is for you, dont squander it, it would be fun for me to try to winnow it down to only ten… : D

5. Applying math to English language is asking for a fail. English is simply to loose and fuzzy to fit within the beautifully rigid (theoretical) structure of mathematics. English is non-recursively enumerable. The only way to apply math/logic to English deterministically, is to restrict the input language to a finite set of precisely defined terms.

As for the 2nd amendment applying only to the Federal government; in practice that was/is true, but according to the language it is not; It plainly said “shall no be infringed” and does not make exception for anything in that very plain and very simple prohibition; not for state, local, or even property rights. The other amendments, that needed the 14th to apply to state governments, did not have nearly so universal language (congress shall make no law, for example). Since “shall not be infringed” does clearly fall under “prohibited by it to the States,” the States, from the ratification of the Bill of Rights, had no authority, whatsoever, to infringe upon the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms.

• The Second Amendment, as are all of the other amendments, limitations on the federal power only, as the Constitution only applies to the creation and powers of the federal government. The breadth of the language is immaterial, since the only power being limited was the power of the federal government to infringe the right vis-a-vis the People. It has no effect on the power of the States, under their various constitutions, that pre-existed it.

So the 14th Amendment was absolutely necessary to extend the power of the amendments to the states, as no state was bound to respect them, absent a similar provision in that State’s constitution. This is well established doctrine in the federal courts. The 14th is a recognition that unless those same rights are extended to all persons under both state and federal authority, the rights guaranteed are illusory.

• This position can be maintained only if one presumes that the Framers were sloppy with their language. “Shall not be infringed” is starkly different than “shall make no law” because it does not mention Congress and thus has no stated limit. Since the “shall make no law” terminology could have been repeated yet was not, the conclusion is that it indeed has no limit and thus that it applies universally: not Congress, not states, not counties or parishes, not municipalities, not churches or businesses or colleges. It thus boils down to the basic bastion of sovereignty, a man’s home, where, as his home is his castle, his word prevails.

• Your statement is flawed. Math is an exercise in logic. That said, math uses logical operators, the use of those operators is shorthand for words. For example, “+” is the same as “and”, and “=” is the same as “equivalent” or “the same as”. The use of mathematical operators is a practice that simplifies logical analysis. If logic does not apply to language, language itself is meaningless.

6. The only case that says otherwise is US v. Miller. Miller was a blatant, outright fraud that people would have gone to jail for if people weren’t distracted by the great depression.

• I suggest you go back and re-read Miller. For one, it upheld the NFA as a tax, not as a regulation of rights under the Second Amendment, since one could still own those weapons by applying and paying the tax. It also held that the Second Amendment was not implicated in the case of a short-barrelled shotgun since such a firearm had no military utility, implying that the right extends to the ownership of military or “military grade” firearms. What it was usually cited for over the years, though, was the concept that the Second was a collective right to preserve the power of the militia, not an individual right. Now Miller didn’t actually say that, only implied it, such that the Heller court was not bound by stare decisis to rule that the right was collective and not individual.

• “it upheld the NFA as a tax, not as a regulation of rights under the Second Amendment”

Does the phrase “The tax in question is not an ordinary form of tax, but one single in kind, with a long history of hostile misuse against the freedom of the press.” mean anything to you?

Miller didn’t uphold anything except criminal legal shenanigans.

• “it upheld the NFA as a tax, not as a regulation of rights under the Second Amendment”
But, any regulation that places an undue burden on a the exercise of a fundamental right is the same as actually denying the right. While the court did not deem a \$200 tax an undue burden, even in the 1930’s, that all changed with the “Hughes Amendment”. A strict, severe limit on a dwindling supply of available firearms seems like a pretty onerous, undue burden. It basically limits the right to the same number of people as full auto firearms already registered in 1986. And of course, not all of THEM are even in firing condition. I also suspect with the Heller Decision’s ruling of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, including personal defense, it could be successfully argued to undo the Courts logic in upholding the bans on Short Barreled Weapons, and AOW’s. While SBW’s may not have much military value, there would be a good case for them as individual, personal defense weapons.

7. I hope the “supreme court” does not eviscerate the Second Amendment the way they did with the 4th and 5th Amendments back in the 1980s with their “drug exception” to Constitutional protections.
The “supreme court” could well rule that there is s “scary-looking black weapons” “exception” to the Second Amendment and could be “regulated” (out of existence). I hope it never comes to that…

8. I’m sorry, but it seems like you just talked in a circle and came to an obvious conclusion.

Can you explain the consequences of this explanation for the common man?

• Perhaps an “obvious conclusion” for a reasonable person, but this exercise was a logical proof to show that the Supreme Court cannot possibly rule otherwise. While lower courts seem to have tossed logic out the window, even as the SCOTUS is now, the do seem to follow logic. When the issue of carry comes before the SCOTUS, they will rule that some form of carry MUST be allowed.

9. I think Mark N. is correct. In Heller, Scalia specifically states that states should allow folks to carry arms. How they carry is up to the states. So it struck me that Peruta was a violation of Heller, but … Mark is also correct (I think) that such proclamations by Scalia were off-point, so it is not binding. Heller also has many references to lower court cases, probably some very old ones, that affirm the individual right to own and bear arms; though I haven’t tried to research them.

• I wish they’d referenced the case where a justice stated that the Second means much as the First, that “Congress shall make no law” — recognizing that would mean throwing out all federal gun laws.

10. Another look at the Second Amendment

Since others believe and cultivate something I do not see, neither logic or theory I can understand, I have been forced to study and relate my reading of the Second Amendment. In the making of our United States Constitution I have 49 plus reasons that help to explain my understanding of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States was established and formulated as a result of the Articles of Confederation. Article 6, reflects part of that vision, “..nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace,… but every State shall always keep up a well- regulated and disciplined militia,…”

If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”).

Articles of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to “person/s.”
“If any person guilty of…
“..and no person shall be capable of…”
“..nor shall any person…”
“..shall be protected in their persons..”
“..nor shall any person holding any office…”
“..granted or surveyed for any person, ..
“..Congress shall name three persons..”
“..list of such persons each party shall..”
“..and the persons whose names shall..”
“..nominate three persons..”
“..provided that no person be allowed to serve..”

“Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights.

Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?

“Person” is one as described by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a “citizen”. “A person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to its protection.”

Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.”

Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”

In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references, there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.

It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.

“..No Person shall be a Representative..” (Article 1 Section 2)
“..whole Number of free Persons,..” (Article 1 Section 2)
“..three fifths of all other Persons…” (Article 1 Section 2)
“..No person shall be a Senator…” (Article 1 Section 3)
“..And no Person shall be convicted…” (Article 1 Section 3)
“..no Person holding any Office…” (Article 1 Section 6)
“..Names of the Persons voting for…” (Article 1 Section 7)
“…of such Persons as any of the States…” (Article 1 Section 9)
“…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…” (Article 1 Section 9)
“…And no Person holding any…” (Article 1 Section 9)
“…or Person holding an Office of Trust of…“ (Article 2 Section 1)
“…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…List of all the Persons voted for,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…and if no Person have a Majority,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…the Person having the greatest Number…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…No person except a natural born Citizen,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…Any Person be eligible to that ….” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…No Person shall be convicted of …” (Article 4 Section 3)
“…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”. (Article 4 Section 3)
“…A Person charged in any State…” (Article 5 Section 2)
“…No Person held to Service…” (Article 5 Section 2)
“…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…” (Amendment IV)
“…and the persons or things to be seized….” (Amendment IV)
“..No person shall be held to answer…” (Amendment V)
“..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….” (Amendment V)
“…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…” (Amendment XII)
“…the person voted for as Vice-President,…” (Amendment XII)
“…all persons voted for as President,….” (Amendment XII)
“…all persons voted for as Vice-President…” (Amendment XII)
“…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …” (Amendment XII)
“…and if no person have such majority,…” (Amendment XII)
“..the persons having the highest numbers …” (Amendment XII)
“… The person having the greatest number of votes…” (Amendment XII)
“..and if no person have a majority,…” (Amendment XII)
“…But no person constitutionally ineligible…” (Amendment XII)
“…All persons born or naturalized …” (Amendment XIV Section 1)
“… any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,” (Amendment XIV Section1 )
“…nor deny to any person within …” (Amendment XIV Section1)
“…number of persons in each State,….” (Amendment XIV Section 2)
“…No person shall be a Senator or …” (Amendment XIV Section3)
“..and such person shall act accordingly….” (Amendment XX Section3)
“…of the death of any of the persons from…” (Amendment XX Section4)
“…case of the death of any of the persons from…” (Amendment XX Section4)
“…No person shall be elected to the office…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“…and no person who has held the office of President,…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“..to which some other person was elected…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“…shall not apply to any person holding the office…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“..prevent any person who may be holding…” (Amendment XXII Section1)

What am I missing?

• What you are missing is two different authors, from two different schools, more than 20 years apart. John Dickinson was a Philadelphia lawyer, educated in London. James Madison was a Gentleman Planter, philosopher, and scientist., educated in Princeton New Jersey. So, the first document was written by an English attorney, the second by an American philosopher. Two very different styles of thought and writing. The Amendments were drafted by Lawyer/Legislators.

• Because the Constitution was written by a philosopher, and really is difficult to follow, Madison. Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a series of papers explaining EXACTLY what was meant in the Constitution. They consist of 85 papers in all. They are known as the Federalist Papers. As well, the Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, one or more men known as “The Federal Farmer, and a diverse group of others wrote a series of papers (The Anti-Federalist Papers). They were opposed to the adoption of the Constitution, and were the moving force behind the Bill of Rights. The exact meaning of the Constitution is difficult discern with studying these papers.
We may have been better off had the Constitution been written by a lawyer, but maybe not…

• Sorry for the typo…
“The exact meaning of the Constitution is difficult discern withOUT studying these papers”.

It is also instructive to read each States Ratification Debates.

• One of the best explanations of the 2nd Amendment was posted in an editorial by Philadelphia Congressman and attorney, Tenche Coxe. Coxe was actually a Federalist, but later became aligned with Thomas Jefferson…

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army,  must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Coxe further commented in another editorial about 18 months later…

“”As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).

So, in case you were wondering how the Founders saw the Second Amendment, there you have it

11. I received a one page response from our President, dated Feb. 12, 2018, regarding his understanding of the Constitution, replying to my letter of 7/29/2017, regarding my understanding of our Constitution.——–

His understanding,…..

“Thank you for taking the time to express your views regarding the Second Amendment. ——

As President, I have no higher obligation than to protect the safety of America and its people. In these efforts, my Administration will always be guided by the wisdom of our Constitution, which ensures the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The Founders enshrined this protection in the Second Amendment because they understood that the ability of law-abiding people to defend themselves and their families is a hallmark of a free and sovereign people. ——–

Undermining our Second Amendment rights will not enhance our safety. Rather, we must redouble our efforts to prevent criminals from obtaining and using firearms to harm innocent Americans. My administration will always enforce Federal law and work with State and local officials to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and protect Americans from violent criminals.”——-

The Second Amendment …”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”——-

Contrary to the Presidents misunderstanding of words, and the Second Amendment, substituting the word “individuals” for “people.,” there is no mention “which ensures the right of individuals” to keep and bear arms.” The fact is “individuals” is not mentioned in our Constitution. ———-

My letter to him stated my argument. The Constitution mentions “person/s” 49 times (Articles of Confederation 11 times), to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. ————-

Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person/s” is not to be found. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as a “person”? The need and reason for “A well regulated militia, …” exactly… because we fight among ourselves.———

The president was not elected because he was an “individual”, but “..guided by the wisdom of our Constitution,..” on a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person.” Elected on the very word he does not believe in. 13 Constitutional references conditioning a “person” to the roll of the President of the United States. A condition the President ignores, refusing to acknowledge meaning of the Second Amendment or “the wisdom of our Constitution,..” relating to it’s 49 references to “person/s.”———-

“…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of
President” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…” (Amendment XII)
“…the person voted for as Vice-President,…” (Amendment XII)
“…all persons voted for as President,….” (Amendment XII)
“…all persons voted for as Vice-President…” (Amendment XII)…”
“…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …” (Amendment XII)
“…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President (Amendment XII)
“…No person shall be elected to the office of the President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“…and no person who has held the office of President,…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“..to which some other person was elected President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“…shall not apply to any person holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“..prevent any person who may be holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)

“When government-adopted texts are given new meaning, the law is changed; and changing written law, like adopting written law in the first place, is the function of the first two branches of government—elected legislators and elected and elected executive officials and their delegates.” (Reading Law.Antonin Scalia/Bryan A. Garner)——

The President was so interested in my letter that he took the time out of his busy schedule to look up my middle name when addressing his reply. He did not have to go to all that trouble.