I could do without the SCOTUS review. I don’t think we’d get the votes due to Kennedy. Combine a ruling against 2A with the possibility of a dem controlled congress and presidency in ‘09 and I’d prefer to just take a pass.
Hard to believe that Republicans have had the presidency for 19 of the past 27 years and we cant get 5 pro-2A votes on the Supreme Court. Even harder to believe that we still debate this collective right BS.
I continue to think that “well regulated” means adequately organized and equipped. Also, I think that the militia is everyone able to fight in a crisis.
To do that, they need to be able to bring a gun.
The above is an exact picture of late 1700’s America. Calling forth the militia is essentially telling the farmers to put down their hoes and to pick up their guns.
The 2d amendment points out both the individual and the national interest in having armed citizens. Self-defense is a God-given right, AND it is useful for free nations.
I agree. But even if they did rule, they may end up not incorporating the second amendment -- meaning the ruling (either individual or collective) would only apply to federal laws.
~~~ California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. ~~~~
Some communitarians here agree. -- They claim:
~~~ California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. ~~~~
That’s my feeling as well. While I think we’re in better position now than in decades, and would be cautiously optimistic, I’d want one more reliably Constitutional vote before I’d actively wish for a SCOTUS interpretation.
Thats because the Republicans at the top of the food chain are closet liberals. These Rockefeller Republicans curse them all.