Then if we can agree that the right to own a firearm should be as restriction-free as possible but still is not an absolute right, then shouldn't the states be the ones deciding when and upon who that right should be restricted and not the federal government?
Now, in a fully armed society with more people taking personal responsibility for their own protection, you'd have a FRACTION of the people we do today surviving to reach trial. Those adjudicated to be too dangerous, via criminality or mental issues, should be locked up for life. Again, assuming they survive their initial encounter with their intended victim.
Now, stop fighting the Gun Grabbers battles for them by carrying their water with these specious arguments...
Revocation of natural inalienable enumerated rights MUST happen on a per-case adjudication thereof, to wit you have the right until a judge tells you in no uncertain terms that you’ve lost it. What we have now is the reverse: in most states, the right is preemptively denied UNTIL adjudicated as allowed on a per-case basis - this is, of course, despicable.
I agree 100% with the notion that gun control legislation is a state’s power, not a federal power. The only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are:
1: Importation of foreign manufactured firearms; not parts, but fully assembled pieces.
2: Denial of rights in all 50 states to people convicted of federal crimes. States should be able to nullify this on a case by case basis.
There is a third instance that I am not 100% sure about and that is the interstate commerce issue. Personally, I think if a state wants to allow or ban firearms sold from other states that’s their business. I am not solid on how the interstate commerce clause (as interpreted constitutionally, not in the liberal manner it is today) would affect these types of transactions.