This a Thread for reference for #2ndAmendment, proof that first, the bill of rights are restrictions on the government, and second that every person has the right to arm themselves with the most effective weapons.
First, the lie that the NRA propagates the “false” belief that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual the right to a gun and that, before District of Columbia v. Heller, the court never ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun.
The ant-gunner crowd is partially correct, the second amendment, like the entire bill of rights, does not grant a right it recognizes that right and is meant to tell the government that it is not allowed to make laws that infringe on the right of the people to bear arms.
Let's look at the beginning of the bill of rights. *see attached picture. First of all, they call for “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” to “extending the ground of public confidence in the government”. 
This clearly shows that these amendments are meant to give the people of the nation the confidence that their government would not be allowed to do what the British had just attempted to do. What did the British do? @TRHLofficial has a great thread covering this.
Now “public confidence in the government” is obviously saying who these amendments affect, the government. These statements are from Mr. Madison during his speech asking for the consideration of the amendments in order to secure the rights of the people. *See images
The Supreme court has held since 1857 that the Second Amendment is a restriction on government power and that the individual's right to own arms is protected by the constitution.
First in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) next in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), and again in Presser v. Illinois, 116 u.s. 252 (1886).
The class books from 1859-1920 all teach that it is “the right of the people to bear arms” and that without this right “ambitious men by the aid of the regular army, overthrow the liberties of the people, and usurp the powers of government.”
Let's see what St George Tucker had to say about this, George Tucker was a Militia officer, lawyer, and professor. He served in the general court of Virginia and then the Supreme court of Virginia and later the United States district court for the district of Virginia.
He wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries with Notes of Reference (1803), under Note D: Of the Constitution of the United States, Part 6 – Restraints on Powers of Congress the picture attached is his statements.
Blackstone's work is often cited in Supreme court arguments and “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Blackstone’s view on arms is expressed in volume 2, chapter 1 of the absolute right of individuals *see attached picture
William Rawle, a prominent lawyer, who was also a member of the Pennsylvania assembly that ratified the bill of rights, wrote a treatise addressing the second amendment.*see attached image
If the second amendment was a collective right, why would he even speak to individuals going armed to the terror of the people? He is also cited in supreme court decisions
The SC in Heller cited a multitude of sources including G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defense, by a Free Militia,
J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886– 887 (1784)
J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886– 887 (1784)
W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785)
All of which agree that by the time of the founding understood the right to bear arms to be an individual right.
All of which agree that by the time of the founding understood the right to bear arms to be an individual right.
The supreme court made a severe mistake in Heller, however,
“Of course, the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not”
The first amendment has the qualifier of “peaceful” in order for the assembly to be protected it must be peaceful,
“Of course, the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not”
The first amendment has the qualifier of “peaceful” in order for the assembly to be protected it must be peaceful,
a riot is not protected.
The second contains no qualifier, it has the exact opposite “shall not be infringed” is a command that leaves no room for making laws. Their apparent justification for this is based on United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008).
The second contains no qualifier, it has the exact opposite “shall not be infringed” is a command that leaves no room for making laws. Their apparent justification for this is based on United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008).
However, this case dealt with the spreading of child pornography, which involves direct harm to another person, one who is not able to consent to the activity.
As we all are aware we do not have a right to do harm to others, by doing so we violate their rights, however, the mere possession of a weapon can not be a violation of another person's rights.
Therefore this argument that the Second Amendment is not unlimited is to me, not valid as the mere possession of a firearm does no harm to another person.
The federal government has broken the contract that was formed with the people, they openly flaunt their violations and the supreme court has refused to act in true accordance with the constitution. All federal laws are unconstitutional.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
