I know that wasn't directed to me, but this is starting to feel like "the endless thread."
The RKBA can and does exist independently from the 2nd amendment. It even uses the same words, "RKBA" that the 2nd amendment uses. But the RKBA does not depend on the 2nd for its life within the states. States are not free to prohibit keep and bear arms, even setting the 2nd aside. The United States Supreme Court said exactly that.
Mojave's concern is that if the feds are the ultimate and only authority on what RKBA means, then RKBA can be reduced, by Congress and SCOTUS, to an unrecognizable form -- and those clamoring for incorporation will bear the lion's share of the blame for that.
He even expressed an example - federal law prohibiting CCW. Maybe that's not in the cards for about 20-50 years, so how about federal licensing and/or registration, with a periodic re-up.
The feds are not your friend.
Thank you, I have no doubt that the Feds are not my friends. Never said as such either. I thank you though for a better interpretation of what Mojave was saying. No offense Mojave, but the explanations just weren’t all that clear from what you were telling me. I’ll take the fault on that one though. Being said though, I think we were trying to arrive at the same conclusion through different means, my apologies.
Well I think most people reading this thread assume that this has already happened. Why would it matter if the state, can already deny your RKBA?
Sad thing is when I was born this whole discussion would have been deemed insane.