What "evidence"? Your erroneous pap about "hundreds of years" and "thousands of people" agreeing with you? That's not "evidence"; that's merely your claim -- and I already told you you're wrong on that, too, and chances are, you've never even bothered to look to see if you're right. Your interpretation, as I said earlier, did not exist in any written form before 1940. Mine goes all the way back to the founding of the country with the support of the men who did so. (MMC was kind enough to post a number of actual quotes to that effect.)
"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." - Alexander Hamilton
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." - Thomas Jefferson
Obviously there are many quotes from our Founding Fathers on gun ownership (so there is no need for you to post others, I'll concede there will be quotes which cover many angles on the issue), but it's clear from the comments of these two, at the very least, there were people who believed in a well-regulated militia for the defense of our country.
US vs. Cruikshank said:
The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.
Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment
From this, we can see the 2nd Amendment was NOT interpreted as an unabridged right to own any and all firearms a citizen wanted, it merely regulated the federal government. When we combine this with the previous statements, we can make the argument the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the federal government from limiting state governments to form their own militias. The idea the 2nd Amendment only limited the federal government (and did not mean universal rights to a gun) was furthered in Presser v. Illinois (and also in Miller v. Texas, though I'm only quoting one):
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
So we've now established the belief in the existence of a trained and well-regulated militia for the defense of our country, and we have Supreme Court cases which show the intent of the 2nd Amendment (at the time of the rulings) was not about granting unabridged rights to own a gun, but rather to protect the concept of a militia from being undermined by the federal government.
Which would make my original statement "a private citizen being able to own a gun for the purpose of assembling in a state militia for defense against foreign enemies" a rather valid interpretation, one which is supported by direct quotes from Founding Fathers and rulings in Supreme Court cases, and my claim of being supported by thousands of people (which can be found with a simple Google search, I'm sure) and hundreds of years much stronger.
I post as I see fit; your "thanks" are neither necessary nor even appropriate.
All the same, I thank you anyways.
Well, good for you. You were "willing" to back away from a dishonest question after pitching a fit about being called on it.
Untrue. The moment you lodged your complaint, I adjusted my question. Your first post to me was to accuse me of begging the question (which, by the way, begging the question is where you support your position by assuming to be true that which you are trying to prove to be true...asking how a lawsuit relates to the 2nd Amendment, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation, could never be begging the question as I am not attempting to assert any position at the time of the question, but rather trying to understand how the two are related....as I said, I did not commit the fallacy. You MIGHT be able to assert I committed the fallacy of the loaded question, but loaded question is not the same thing as begging the question), and when I asked you to explain, it was then you explained how you took issue with my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The moment you did so, I was willing to reframe my question to fit any valid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
This will be my last post to you. I have attempted to regain some civility in our discussion, and you have not shown any intention to reciprocate. I hope I have now satisfied your desire for more concrete evidence (which was a fair criticism) of my interpretation and my claim, but if your posts towards me in this thread are an example of future postings from you, I will not expect you to like/agree/recognize them as valid. But I have grown weary of coming into a thread for an honest debate, and have my integrity attacked by someone who has already admitted no interest in discussing the topic. And to head off your next comment, I am not crying or whining nor will I post on other forums. I will simply ignore any further post from you which is made in the same aggressive manner your previous ones towards me have been. If you wish to discuss this topic in a mature fashion, I'll be happy to do so. But I will not engage any further in base 2nd Amendment arguments, nor will I reply to any other derogatory remarks.
the failed nominee attempted to advance a legal theory that gun makers, wholesalers and retailers of firearms should be held liable for ILLEGALLY owned handguns in the state of NY this attempt was based on Public Nuisance and did not attempt to prove that the makers (who can only sell to licensed wholesalers or dealers) actually provided handguns to any banned entity. this theory would hold makers and wholesalers liable for the illegal acts of third parties.
For example, Halligan supported New York’s efforts to hold the manufacturers of handguns liable for criminal acts committed with handguns. Those lawsuits represented an activist effort to use the courts to solve a societal problem. When Congress was considering shutting those lawsuits down, Halligan gave a speech in which she noted how the “dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility,” a formulation that sounds like it’s from the living Constitution hymnal.
Nothing you've said here is any different than what I've already known. However, I am very curious about your statement of "Halligan supported New York’s efforts". How do you determine she supported this, as opposed to simply doing the job she was supposed to do. Furthermore, how does allowing gun manufacturers to be held liable affect the 2nd Amendment, regardless of the interpretation? The 2nd Amendment says nothing about gun manufacturers, it only discusses the rights of a citizen to own a gun.