"In the past , gun activists have labeled scholars who have expressed similar views to the dissents as advocates of the collective rights interpretation ."
"And there is that disingenuousness on display ! The dissenting Justices would never propose the use of a alternate , subjectively interpreted standard of scrutiny to be applied for any other right deemed `` individual `` expressly secured by a provision of the Bill of Rights ( Stevens especially and even for rights NOT enumerated ) . The dissents refuse to consider the incongruousness of saying that , `` based on our precedent and todayÂ ’ s opinions , to which . . . the entire Court subscribes `` the 2nd Amendment , `` protects an Â “ individualÂ ” rightÂ—i.e. , one that is separately possessed , and may be separately enforced `` and then argue that , `` When each word in the text is given full effect , the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. `` Say what ? ? ? ? The leftist dissenters , while acknowledging the Court 's history of unwavering `` individual right `` conclusions , revert to their old statist ( but invalid ) theories when explaining their unconstitutional , philosophically bankrupt positions ."
"gun activists have labeled scholars who have expressed similar views to the dissents as advocates"
"And there is that disingenuousness on"