Jonestown, there is a difference between "individual intent" and an unrestrained right to own anything that might be classified as an "arm".
So say you, your friends here, and the governments intent on restraining our rights to keep/bear arms. -- Re-read Roland, who explains well our unrestrained rights to property, -- in his essay you claimed to agree with.
I can find no indication that the founders ever intended this broad definition of arms. I can find specific reference to small arms. The Militia Act and the debates surrounding that speak of military small arms. There is no record of court cases supporting any other right than a right to small arms and the legal record is further limited to a right to specific types of small arms.
The government is only constrained, in reality, from doing things prohibited by the Constitution (yes I know that was the not the idea at the time but that is what has happened).
You admit you know better, yet you condone, "in reality" unconstitutional prohibitions.
Are you an officer of the court? If so, for shame.
Now consider we have had a court tell us that Congress CAN regulate free political speech, flat against the clear word and intent of the founders. Do you really believe the courts could not or will not gut the 2nd if they thought it was in their interests?
I really believe that they could not pull it off. There will be a massive Constitutional crisis if it is ever attempted.
I write of two things...what the Constitution really says, in my view, and the very different world in which we live where the courts speak of different "rights". In the world we live, we have a right to small arms of a milita use and all other arms are simply allowed because no one has forbid them, as yet. If you doubt me, how do you explain various state bans on bogus assault weapons and California's recent 50cal gun grab?
The feds support unconstitutional State 'grabs' because they also support bans themselves. This is not a mystery, is it?
And it is the law of the land and all the posting on internet sites in the world and tilting at windmills will not change this fact. Change is only done by electing the right people.
Gee. -- No kidding. -- Do you really think repeating that mantra is any better than mental masturbation?
Forget indignation over court and legislative attacks on the Constitution. Indignation serves no purpose. Elect politicians who will select judges who have actually read the Constitution. Now there is an idea.
Yep, an idea that is not working, as we see by the actions of the Bush administration.
And your effective proposal is? Simply posting is little more than mental masturbation.
I favor the 'Free State' scheme. A direct challenge to fed gun laws by a State would eventually have to win.
"I favor the 'Free State' scheme. A direct challenge to fed gun laws by a State would eventually have to win."
If by that you mean the move to NH by 20,000 libertarians over the next few years, I agree, a good idea but a poor choice of states.
For info NH had 17,000 immigrants from Mass last year alone. Even if all 20,000 do move in, the liberals from Mass will overwhelm them. Look at the election results over the last few years. Every election pushes the envelope in NH further to the left.
They should have picked a conservative state, one that needed just a nudge instead of trying to hold back the tide.