Replies

There are many points popping up in this post. Let's hope by resolving one or two, the logic can be applied to resolving some of the others. Here's one for today: I understand the principle of the argument that you pose, that the fedguv steps in to protect life when the state fails to. But it is not consistent, which is my point. It is a pick and choose matter for the feds to become involved, only when it's to their advantage. If the fedguv is going to protect life with Roe, why does it not protect life by incorporating the second amendment across the board? All state and federal gun control laws should be abolished. We know that gun control laws deny people the right to defend their lives. Therefore, their right to life has been abolished. Is not the federal government guilty of being at war with the principles of the DOI, the same as if would be if Roe were reversed?

The Feds are limited in when they can enter into a state legal matter.

They must wait until it makes it way to the Federal court.

Now, with the Bill of Rights, there should a consistent protection in all 50 states.

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, the problem is we have not had a pro-2nd Amendment Supreme Court that sees that all restrictions on gun ownership violates that right.

We should have the same rights as Vermont (of all states!) which has a right to carry with no permits necessary.

The failure is in defining the 2nd Amendment and enforcing that right as an individual right that cannot be infringed upon by any state.

It was based on this reasoning that the GOP congress sought to remove the gun ban in DC (since Congress oversees the DC gov't) stating it was an infringment on individual liberty.

"We should have the same rights as Vermont (of all states!) which has a right to carry with no permits necessary.

The failure is in defining the 2nd Amendment and enforcing that right as an individual right that cannot be infringed upon by any state.

Agreed. Nor even manipulated or modified by the federal government. The gun laws of 1934 was a serious intrusion, but as with prohibition, nobody came against it. With prohibition, the constitution was descrated twice. Once by passing the amendment, and the second time by removing it.

The failure is in defining the 2nd Amendment and enforcing that right as an individual right that cannot be infringed upon by any state.

While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree on grounds of interpretation..

The 2nd amendment only prohibits infringement of the individual's RKBA, it does not grant that Right to the People.
The principle that "the people" have an "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms is an implicite admission in the 2nd amendment..

Also, ONE REASON stated is that the people, individually or as a group, (militia) be able to defend themselves, the state or the nation in times of emergency..
( I classify an "emergency" as someone attempting to assault or murder me, my family, freinds, or innocent bystanders, especially if a law enforcement officer is not present to resolve the situation.. if an LEO is present, I can still assist..)

I don't have any problem with "defining" RKBA as an individual right, I believe that it is..
My problem is using the 2nd amendment to define that right..
The 2nd is just about prohibiting interference with that right.. not the right itself..