Replies

It does not say that the RKBA shall be institutionalized in a well ordered state militia. It says that 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," setting up the reason that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." The wording is absolute. Every law that requires registration or makes it difficult or illegal for ANYONE to keep and bear arms (ARMS, undefined) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's any arms, brass knuckles, muskets, Bushmasters, hand grenades, F-16s- ANY arms.

The liberals and many conservatives gasp in horror at this idea- there MUST be some limits. Well, there are- the market. How many of us can afford an H-bomb?

And liberals and many conservatives gasp- But felons shouldn't be allowed t have guns! and crazy people! Well those folks are barred by UNConstitutional laws already. How have those laws worked out? It is already Constitutionally illegal for these people, or any people (except maybe, members of Congress) to do the things we fear they might do if they have arms or if they use other sorts of implements or their bare hands or pens, for that matter.

This is where Hannity and other talk show guys get it wrong and hand the argument over to the gun banners. If you admit of some limits, sensible limits in Hannity's own head, then you have to draw the line somewhere and such lines have always proved easy to move or they get all squiggly and broken up. It is harder to defend an arbitrary line than it is to defend an absolute principle, which is what is written into the actual 2nd Amendment. When you draw arbitrary lines you become Boehner. Lines are always negotiable.