“IMO, most people understand the present domestic threat is as real and unforgiving as what the Nazis, imperial Japanese and Soviets posed in their day.”
“Rather than (individual) gun control, the discussion should be focused on federal/state/agency gun “balance”. That is, either their capabilities should be subject to ‘control’, or citizen access to military grade weapons - consistent with the original meaning of the 2A - should be expanded.”
“The 1934 NFA is the act that could really be subject to close scrutiny. Any informed reading of the law today would lead many to conclude it’s unconstitutional.”
To me, looking at the Founders’ statements about “arms,” it is utterly plain that they were talking about ALL types of arms - not just muskets, handguns or even Kentucky rifles. People like John Hancock owned dozens of cannon (the WMD of the day), and were authorized with Letters of Marque and Reprisal to attack the Brits by the Continental Congress (and that very thing led to the power of Congress to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal in Article 1, Section 8 (and those were issued by the hundreds during the War of 1812).
It is absolutely anathema to the idea of what our Republic is supposed to be - a protector of the individual rights of its citizens, a necessary evil - that the federal government, with not only its outward-facing standing army, but with its inward-facing security services (i.e. a standing army, but one looking at and controlling US) can and does have full autos by the freight car load, and we cannot. The NFA was, ironically, argued to be Constitutional by the feds because it only levied a tax, rather than prohibiting ownership of full autos (and, of course, destructive devices, suppressors and everything else regulated by the NFA) - yet the 1986 FOPA prohibits any civilian from acquiring any full auto manufactured post-5/19/86. So they defeated their own argument.
I relish the idea of the NFA going to the Supremes, but I’d like to have 2 more solid Constitutionalists on the Court first. If Breyer and Ginsberg resign or die, we’ve got the first half of that equation, and it looks likely that at least one of them won’t be on the Court in the next 2-3 years (and, of course, this assumes that Trump wins, which I believe that he will). The NFA and most gun control is so incredibly far from the Founders’ ideas about the relationship between the citizens and the government that we created for OUR benefit, that it needs to be struck down.
Assuming that such occurs (a big assumption, I know), I would think that within 2 years there would be about 5 million full autos - either newly produced, or converted with a “happy switch.” At that point, there would simply be nothing that our government could EVER do to impose a dictatorship.
In many respects, Hussein might have represented the furthest reach of the progs. Consider that while patriots cannot mount (yet) an attack on the respective agencies, neither can the federal and/or state governments launch actions against the citizenry.
While the state apparatus certainly controls the cities and main lines of commerce/communications, any foray outside of those protected citadels would be met with resistance. If we assume that the feds/states could mount a force of say, 3m, then only 3% of the 100m patriots would have to commit to a 1:1 sacrifice to destroy that action.
That's why there's this stand-off; both sides can do the calculus. The politicians jaw away, while all the time knowing it's just talk. However, so too patriots who talk about marching on DC. Neither is going to happen, but as time moves on, the advantage continues to build on the side of independence.
We get 1-2 more constitutionalists, and the 100 year reign of terror by the left comes to an end.