The Czar seems to have written poorly.

‘Puter is correct that that the Bill of Rights protects all citizens of all 50 states and wherever else the Contitution is accepted (territories, protectorates, et ceteras). But the Bill of Rights was intended as a federal protection only. It sets limits on the Federal government, but makes no requirements of the states, counties, etc.. The incorporation doctrine you cite explains that the Bill of Rights makes no sense without its extension to lower governments: for example, the US cannot have freedom of speech if Detroit, to pick a place at random, refuses to accept it in municipal law. Hence, the Gideon decision that it’s gotta go all the way down the chain.

The Czar’s point is that this has never even been in question with the Second Amendment for all the reasons stated before. Which, as we agree, puts the Times editorial staff in a liberal pickle, who seem to want it the other way. At least, this is the vibe the Czar picked up on.

Okay, back to work, everybody. This world won’t conquer itself.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.