Reply #103: What specifically causes you to reject Feingold's premise ?

[hansberrym]

from the OP:
Prevailing opinions of times, at least among pro-gun control liberals, were that the 2nd Amendment
did not confer an individual right but only a collective right of a military or National Guard to bear arms. "I thought to myself, I bet that is not true."

Feingold studied the 2nd Amendment and after researching and examination of Constitutional history
and various sides of the gun-control debates ... "that the 2nd Amendment was, indeed, relevant to contemporary American society because it conferrred an individual right to bear arms."
Feingold argued that the Bill of Rights, which was intended to restrict government power, was concerned with protecting individual, not collective rights that included the right to a firearm, he was convinced.

Basically, Feingold's assumption is "someone should be able to have a weapon unless there is some overriding reason not to."

Feingold has voted for some gun-control measures and he has opposed others --- "and is sensitive to restrictions that might overreach."

I don't buy his argument, but I think it's an interesting premise ---



Throughout this discussion you have made general statements such as the Second Amendment is "archaic" which do not even touch on he correctness of Feingold's examination of the history of the amendment -Furthermore that claim was anwered by various posters showing that the individual RKBA is currently upheld in more than 40 states and some 40 states even allow concealed carry, so the "archaic" claim does not hold up to scrutiny.


Do you have any evidence to show that Feingold was mistaken in his examination of the history of the Second Amendment?