What's theoretical about defending yourself with a stick instead of a gun? I'd really like you to explain yourself.
"How then do you justify disallowing the basic ownership of the Glock"
It's a bit more than property, is it not? Render it incapable of ever firing and I'll defend your right to own it as property. Deal?
"How can you say you have the right to defend your life, but only the weapons approved by the government?"
It's called the police power of a state. Look it up. Educate yourself.
"And what is to prevent the government from limiting the choices of approved weapons ... to the point of inaccessibility"
Then that would interfere with the defense of the country, which then makes it a national issue..
If you can ban the gun, you can ban the stick as well. And the use of the fist, and the defiant glare, etc., until the actual ability to defend the self is gone, with only the theory remaining. Then, there are the real world examples of 8 year olds defending their families with a handgun from home invaders, murderers and rapists. You think a stick would suffice in more than theory?
It's a bit more than property, is it not? Render it incapable of ever firing and I'll defend your right to own it as property. Deal?
No deal. It's a tool, just like a table saw or a computer. It is designed to accomplish a needed task, and rendering it incapable of the task negates the reason to possess it as property. Not only that, but it is a class of property that is specifically singled out as something the people can keep, without infringement.
But, tell you what, you can own any house you want, as long as it is unfit for habitation. Deal?
It's called the police power of a state. Look it up. Educate yourself.
Police power, like all governmental powers, are delegated to the State by the people. The power to infringe on the RKBA is specifically not delegated. Therefore, that is an illegitimate use of police power.
Then that would interfere with the defense of the country, which then makes it a national issue..
So, you think the defense of the Nation is what is not to be infringed by the government in the 2nd A.? The Government is not to be allowed to prevent the Government from defending itself?