What is your problem? You don't think the state can do that? You don't think states HAVE done that? Do you live in a cave, not paying any attention to what's going on around you?
Geez Louise. Get frickin' educated.
Folks, robertpaulsen has just justified Communist-style censorship. So long as laws say a government can ban something - anything - books, arms, whatever - he's OK with it. In his reasoning (and I've been following it for thousands of posts) your "rights" exist only insofar as the words on paper permit their existance.
We're libertarians arguing philosophy with a totalitarian. Well, if someone fundamentally believes "Whatever those in power enact into law is fine", then arguing from a position of 'inalienable rights' won't get you anywhere with him - ever.
Seriously. He wrote his own analogy to the 2nd Amendment regarding a 'freedom to own books', and had no problem with the interpretation therof allowing the governement to ban private ownership of books outright under that analogy (_Farenheit_451_, anyone?), so long as a select staff was authorized to be in the library. Likewise, he has no problem with our current layers of government banning private ownership of arms, so long as the paperwork can be interpreted that way (and, of course, if it can't be interpreted that way, it can be changed to do so). Even faced with the flat-out federal ban of a category of militia-suitable arms enacted in 922(o), he doesn't see that conflicting with the 2nd Amendment; the Founding Fathers have apparently protected a right which can be legislated into oblivion, and he's OK with that interpretation.
Why he so adamantly promotes this totalitarian view of one right on a board called Free Republic, I don't know. Yes, robertpaulsen really believes this stuff.