Here we go again....

Had posted a reply to a comment that was left on an article I had submitted on Free Market News Network.
.
Thought my response would solve the misconceptions the person obviously had. But, apparently, it wasn't enough. Leif Rakur decided to contend the evidence, yet again. Here, in part is his supposition;
.
"While the Supreme Court has since incorporated many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment to make them applicable against the states, the Second Amendment is not one of those rights. Here are additional passages from additional U.S. Supreme Court decisions saying that the Second Amendment does not apply against state governments."
.
What follows is my response to Leif's newest comment:
.
You reference the Marshall quote of Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833). Which is somewhat baffling. How can a judge reverse himself in 27 years? (United States v. Burr 1807). The body of the Constitution didn't change in that period. Which causes one to wonder. Just what was the age of the judge at the time of his 1833 decision? Surely can give one food for thought, couldn't it? What was the judge’s mental capacity? Was he senile? Not in full control of his mental faculties? Why would he reverse himself in such fashion?
.
What causes further incomprehension, is when the preamble of the Bill of Rights is taken into consideration;
.
"The Conventions of a number of the STATES having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
.
Now, why would the states insist upon the addition of the Bill. And then, be satisfied when the Supreme Court denies the implementation of it? I was not aware the Supreme Court had such power. It is truly amazing! That such a small and limited judicial body can turn the whole Constitution into "just a g-ddamn piece of paper"! I had always thought their job was to properly interpret - not disregard and, in effect, negate the law of the land. Why don't you show me in the Federalist Papers, where the Court was granted such power?
.
Oh, and by the way. Here are the correct legal terms for Marshall's 1833 decision, as well as for all of the other Constitutionally repugnant decisions that you referenced;
.
"SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA."
.
"COMMUNIS ERROR"
.
Why don't you look those up, get a translation, and then, get back with me, OK?
.
You also might want to take a look at the following links while your at it;
.
1689 Bill of Rights
.
The Rights of The Colonists
.
Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms
.
On these documents you'll discover how the Right was preexisting to the Constitution. And, that the intentions, of the Anti-Federalists, was for SECURING these Right(s). Rights, they viewed as so important, that Mr. Richard Henry Lee referred to them as "Those essential Rights of mankind without which Liberty cannot exist." And, as it turned out, Mr. Madison later agreed with them on the matter. Which FACT, can be shown here;
.
"It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of EVERY MEMBER of the community, ANY apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to DEPRIVE them of the LIBERTY for which they VALIANTLY FOUGHT and HONORABLY BLED. And if there are Amendments desired of such a nature as will NOT INJURE the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give SATISFACTION to the DOUBTING part of OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that SPIRIT of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished....We ought NOT TO DISREGARD their inclination, but, on PRINCIPLES of amity and moderation, CONFORM to their wishes, and EXPRESSLY DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND SECURED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION." - James Madison,
.
Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).
.
Here is another bit of information for you to consider; The Right
.
Interesting isn't it, Leif? Especially when you consider Madison's use of 'MANKIND', rather than states. You don't suppose Madison was intending its application for just a select group of 'mankind', do you? Seems to me, that 'MANKIND' is somewhat all inclusive. But, that's just me, right?
.
Must admit. I’m somewhat perplexed as to why someone would argue in defense of more or perverse government control! Indeed, it is VERY puzzling.
.
Even more puzzling, is why does many in the government(s), want to limit, restrict or keep Rightful gun ownership out of the hands of citizens? Especially since the Framers of the Constitution placed it there as a means for the people to ward off a tyrannical government? Now, why do you suppose they'd do that?