I'm not looking for "Pie in the Sky", or to debate whose "interpretation" is "correct" or if it is in fact an interpretation or the plain simple straightforward truth of what the Second Amendment says. I'm not about "converting non-believers" or winning over "fence sitters". I'm about the defeat of those who intentionally subvert the purpose of, misconstrue, and over-analyze; and then misdirect the purpose of the Second Amendment, and to what the Second Amendment directs its dictate.
Who here can deny that the bottom line of the Second Amendment is that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? It isn't saying that to the people, is it? No. It's telling that to government. It's not a promise from the government that our right will not be infringed. It's a dictate to the government not to infringe upon the right. It makes no exception for the "Commerce Clause" to be used to infringe the right. It makes no allowance for what might be considered "reasonable restrictions". It says nothing about any requirement that an arm must be suitable for militia use, nor does it contain any test parameters to such an end. Whether you vaporize the brains of your adversary with a death ray, or empty your bladder and he slips in the puddle and cracks his skull open on the floor doesn't matter. An arm is an arm.
The Second Amendment grants no power to government. Therefore, no misconstrual, "interpretation", or supposition can logically be taken from that Amendment that would imply that government can derive power from it - to apply "reasonable restrictions", or used by the several states that wish to usurp the right to keep and bear arms from the people. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." has no such grant of power in it, either.
The Second Amendment is the people telling those in government that if they wish for we the people to back them up in their service to the people, to leave our arms alone and don't tell us when and where we may or may not carry them.
For those of you who think I'm reaching too far, and believe that this "revision" to the NICS is a step in the right direction, I have to point out something to you. This law is still on the books. It will become more complicated. We will be thrown a bone with the "updating" provisions, but the original restrictions are still there. We will be subject to more infringement of our right with the inclusion of further reaching records that will be added to the NICS. This Act will not remove one unconstitutional restriction. We will have gained effectively nothing. The anti-rights crowd gains hundreds of thousands of potential gun owners added to their list of who may not own a gun. We might gain a few thousand on our side - after all those who wish to be "reclassified" jump through a bunch of hoops and lay their case in the lap of uncaring bureaucrats. You'll notice that these people who can be dropped from the restricted lists aren't simply dropped. The anti-rights crowd loses nothing.
This is bad law. Just as bad as the original Brady Act.
As to the cost of keeping the violent criminals locked up, they can earn their keep. The Thirteenth Amendment makes an exception for the duly convicted to be held in servitude. That'll cost less than the NICS. It could potentially make money for the several states and the Union. I imagine a majority of the mentally deranged can earn their keep as well.
Trust me, all these restrictions on our rights are not there to control the bad elements in our society, they are there to control us, the law abiding. There is a better way, a cheaper way, yet those in government refuse to implement it - because it'll mean removing restrictions on the law abiding and a loss of a hold those in government have on you and me.
Maybe we should learn a lesson from the criminal elements in this country. They exercise far more freedom than we the law abiding do. They go out and get arms regardless of the unconstitutional law. We abide it. They carry anywhere they damned well please. We adhere to the restrictions. The only thing we have over the criminals - and this is important - is that we do not misuse our arms. Throw out the unconstitutional law, and there is no difference between the criminals and the law abiding when it comes to the keeping and bearing of arms. We don't part company until it comes to the use or misuse of our arms. That is where the only criminal action comes into play, and that criminal action is what should determine whether or not a criminal stays in prison, gets executed, or can be released after a time and considered trustworthy with arms. After release from prison, each ex-con is no longer under the protection of the state and must rely on himself for his defense - just like the rest of us do.
Woody
A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
