Preacherman said:
Hawkeye, regrettably (because on a personal level I agree with you) you're only offering your own interpretation of what the Constitution means, and its binding authority on the US Government.
I am only recognizing that words have meaning.
Unfortunately, the US courts don't agree with you.
No, actually I am asserting that they do agree with me, but disingenuously pronounce, in effect, that black is white, because they wish to provide a certain degree of
perceived legitimacy to the extraconstitutional activities of the Federal Government.
If you were to try to act on your understanding of the Second and other Amendments, you would find yourself convicted of a crime, and spend time in jail (and lose your other civil rights too).
You are quite right. I would be convicted of a "crime,"
which is no crime at all, and spend time in jail. As for my civil rights, they will not be lost, but rather
violated; an important distinction.
We're stuck with the present situation, whether we like it or not, unless and until we can elect representatives who will pass legislation that restores the unmistakeable intent of the Founding Fathers w.r.t. the RKBA. If we don't succeed in doing this, we'll be stuck with (at best) the present system, or (shudder!
) an even worse set of laws, if opponents of the RKBA manage to elect representatives who will implement their views.
Agreed.
I agree that SCOTUS is not infallible, but they are authoritative...
They are authorized only to
uphold the Constitution. When they use their delegated powers to frustrate the intent of the Constitution, they are not using authority, but
illegitimate power; another important distinction.
and right now, they've exercised their authority in ruling against your interpretation of the Constitution.
As I said, they are exercising delegated powers illegitimately,
not authority. Their
authority is loaned to them by the American people for the purpose of
upholding the manifest intent of the US Constitution, not to thwart that intent.
To change that, we must change the law.
The highest law of the land already prohibits the infringement, by the Federal Government, of the right to keep and bear arms. If they will violate that law, what law will restrain them?
To change the law, we must change our representatives (either the attitudes of existing representatives, or the election of new ones).
We must exchange our representatives for those who would uphold the law that
already exists. No new law is required.
To do this, we need to mobilize our resources, get our viewpoint out there, and convince the majority of voters that we have a point worthy of their support. Doing this in the face of mass opposition from the Loony Left, the mainstream news media, and many of our current Congresscritters, is going to take a monumental effort - one that I don't think has much chance of success.
Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment of our chances.
Sorry to be gloomy, but I'm a realist.
I am a realist too. I prefer, however, to distinguish between
de facto law and
de jure law. That is probably what confused you about what I've written. When I speak of
the law, you can assume that I am only speaking of
de jure law, unless I specify otherwise. I am of the opinion that it is a sloppy use of the English language to refer to all dictates of Federal officials simply as
the law, especially when most of it has no real force in law at all, although it does have quite a bit of another kind of force behind it, i.e., the point of a gun.
PS
De Facto: A term meaning "in actual fact," regardless of legal or normative standards, and refers to an action or a state of affairs, which for all practical purposes, must be accepted, but which has no formal legal basis.
De Jure: A thing done according to law; by right; legitimate.
