2 problems then that YOU have to answer. I say YOU, collectively, because "You" are saying that the 2nd amendment is clear.( If "I" don't have the right to recognize what it says, who does?)And that the Heller decision is pertinent. 1st: The Heller Decision was against the District of Columbia. It was NOT against a "State". As such, many states don't recognize it. And even if they did, the decision by the supreme court simply said that the 2nd amendment applied to the citizens/individuals and NOT just to the states in forming a militia. Now, assuming that all states accepted this as fact that applied to them and not to the District of Columbia which is NOT a state and doesn't have the same protection and power that states do; the next point however is: the court decision still didn't define the questions of where, when, who, how, etc... You might believe that they did; but they didn't. Read it. It simply said that the DC Firearms control regulations act of 1975 was unconstitutional and that DC can not prohibit the individual to posses a firearm for private use. But that doesn't stop the states from saying that you must get a permit, register it, be a certain character of person, and other requirements.
Since when did the Court have to "say" anything for us to be able to exercise our rights. Where is that in our Constitution?
So, if you disagree with this; which I'm sure many here do; the my question to you is quite simple. WHY do certain states like New Jersey and California and Illinois, have much different and much stricter requirement to "Possess" the gun, than states such as Wyoming, Montana, and Vermont? And MORE IMPORTANT; Why are they ALLOWED to enforce these rules??????
I like the passion here! Why? because no one has, as of yet, stopped them. Why was King George allowed to abuse the Colonies? When did he stop? When our Founders MADE him stop. There are many ways we can make THEM stop. lets keep it up.
All the decision by the courts did; which is a good thing; was to say that the right to have and bear arms applied ALSO to the individual citizen and NOT just to the state and their militia. It never defined the administrative rules that a state can impose on the procedures for having and bearing those arms.
There is no need to have these things defined. The Founders included the word "Infringed" for a very good reason. The word is not difficult, we have just, collectively, ignored that word. We have ignored the law of our land.
That is why the 2nd amendment isn't clear. Yes, it's quite clear that we're allowed to have and bear arms. But it isn't clear that it's an instant right that doesn't require certain boundaries. Therefor, the states have set up those boundaries. And the federal government has also set up certain boundaries on who is ALLOWED to exercise that "Right".
"Infringed" again...
One major point I want to share with you. I am concerned that, perhaps, you unknowingly hold the position that the rule of governments is absolute. The Founders did not think so, I do not think so, the Constitution does not say so, and God does not say so. That thought IS, however, very much the unspoken, unrealized thinking of many in our society today.
There are perhaps various reasons for this. Do you realize many gun control laws in this country originally sprang from racist motives? "We" don't want certain folks, whom we fear, to have guns. So we pass certain laws, understanding that "we" will be exempt. over the course of time, we eventually become subject to those laws also.
Once we hand over the Rule of law for any convienience, or for any desire for safety, or personal provision of any good or service, we are in trouble. Because people who hunger for power will always hunger for more. And people who are too lazy or covetous to care for or provide for themselves, will tend to get lazier and lazier, over the course of time.
We have become a Nation who expect "Government" to be our god. To provide everything for us, to protects us, to give us happiness, to guarantee every good thing, to be above any questioning or disobediance. That attitude has to change. That is fundamentally a spiritual problem, much more than a political one.
Thankfully, the issues are becoming more clear, as time has progressed. A false sense of comfort is harder to maintain. More and more folks are learning about the Constitution, more States are asserting States Rights. CCW has been a truly remarkable occurence in the life of our nation. I would not have believed it possible years ago.
Let's continue our efforts to not "allow" our rights to be ignored any longer. But unraveling generations of misunderstanding and sloth will not be easy. I certainly need to do a lot more myself.
Thanks for the good discussion,
Tom