My analogy is perfect. Just because you don’t like does not make it imperfect.
As to your constitutional analysis I don’t have to read any further than your proposal to allow guns in court to know it is nuts. The 2d Amendment does not say that people have the right to bear arms EVERYWHERE and AT ALL TIMES. What are you afraid that the Judge is going to take a shot at you?
You ignore completely the reason the amendment was written and the fact that it had nothing to do with personal security. It was written and clearly states that it is there to PROTECT the states from the feds. To assure people that state militias were not to be disarmed. “A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Anti-federalists were worried that the feds would possess the only armed forces and it was to reassure them and others that the militias would remain viable institutions. Some states even include language such as that of the Illinois constitution (not that it means anything in reality) that all able-bodied citizens are members of the militia.
And, you misstate the situation wrt Obamacare. It was NEVER a popular idea and was rammed through without knowing what was in it. Totally different than what happened in Mass. sophistry aside.
Now, of course, “the people” did not include Blacks in southern states for over a hundred years and they were systematically disarmed. Mentally ill people are rightfully still excluded as are felons.
And you ignore completely that in the linked article I am referencing, for the most part, the State's own Constitution.
Mentally ill people are rightfully still excluded as are felons.
Both of those positions I disagree on; a felon having served his sentence should have full rights and privileges restored; to do otherwise is to create a second class of citizen.
As for the 'mentally ill', I do not think that is a good idea because, just as soviet Russia showed us, political dissidents are obviously mentally ill, otherwise they would not dissent.
As to your constitutional analysis I don’t have to read any further than your proposal to allow guns in court to know it is nuts.
So then it's a-ok to force people who have committed no crime to appear in a court, disarmed, all while denying any obligation to provide for their safety?
That is an idiotic position for anyone to take.
Such a situation literally begs for abuse of jurors by the threats of the court should they "get uppity" and try to use the right of nullification on a case that the state deems *must* be a crime. Imagine, if you will the jury of say George Zimmerman, being bullied into finding him guilty of *something*... not that I think our courts are quite that corrupt yet, but such is not unthinkable any longer.
And, you misstate the situation wrt Obamacare. It was NEVER a popular idea and was rammed through without knowing what was in it. Totally different than what happened in Mass. sophistry aside.
So? It passed the legislature and was signed into law by the executive. That in itself is enough, no?
Unless, of course, the Constitution not delegating such power to the federal government is in essence the same as prohibiting it. (10th Amd.)
(That is to say, the popularity of something is completely separate/independent from the lawfulness of that thing.)