Why Is Gun Ownership An Absolute Right, But Free Speech Is Not?

[BLUSH]

The Supreme Court says you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why doesn't the same apply to the second amendment, considering the qualifier "a well-regulated militia?" If you're not in the militia, why do you have any right to bear arms?


edit:

Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. . .

—United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103.


It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.

—Tot v. United States, 131 F. 261


The courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers; a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear "a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia."

—U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548


MORE HERE:

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2ndamend.htm