It’s fair to wonder why a prolific contributor to FR spends his thousands of posts advocating a view that most readers construe as anti-RKBA, and who insults those who attempt to understand his motivation.
Am I misguided in concluding that, in your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
- every state that does not explicitly protect RKBA in their constitution could, tomorrow, pass a law banning guns entirely?
- every state that does explicitly protect RKBA in their constitution could, tomorrow, pass a state-constitutional amendment repealing that protection, and the next day pass a law banning guns entirely?
- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law limiting militia membership to Irish-descended midgets?
- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law banning all firearms except muskets?
- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law limiting possession and use of legal firearms (at this point, only muskets) to militia members (at this point, only Irish-descended midgets) when actually called out by the President?
From what most can tell, your passionately-promoted interpretation allows for the above. As the conclusion is so obviously anti-RKBA, pardon us if we construe your prolific writings on the subject as advocating a legal position whereby individual ownership of modern firearms can easily be abolished - to wit, anti-gun.
Do you believe a criminal has the right to remain silent? That he has a right to a public attorney at no charge? That he has a right to a trial by jury? That if evidence that would convict him was obtained without a warrant, that evidence cannot be used even it means he goes free?
If you believe that, let me ask you. Why are you pro-crime? Why do you advocate we coddle criminals -- are you some sort of namby-pamby, bleeding heart liberal? Or are you a felon? When did you get out of prison?
Why are you even on this forum with that attitude? We're tough on crime here at FR. You don't belong.
"- every state that does not explicitly protect RKBA in their constitution could, tomorrow, pass a law banning guns entirely? - every state that does explicitly protect RKBA in their constitution could, tomorrow, pass a state-constitutional amendment repealing that protection, and the next day pass a law banning guns entirely?"
I just answered that. Short term memory loss?
"- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law limiting militia membership to Irish-descended midgets?"
That would be unconstitutional, violating their due process.
"- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law banning all firearms except muskets?"
I have no idea where they would get the power to do so. Can you tell me where you think they would? Otherwise this hypothetical is a complete waste of my time.
"- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law limiting possession and use of legal firearms (at this point, only muskets) to militia members (at this point, only Irish-descended midgets) when actually called out by the President?"
Nope. For the reasons I just gave.
OK. I answered your questions. Answer mine. When it was ratified in 1791, do you think the second amendment protected the right of all individuals in the United States to keep and bear arms? It says "the people".
Please explain why there were exceptions back then, but why there should be no exceptions today? Being a namby-pamby, bleeding heart liberal that coddles criminals, I guess you think we have a "living constitution" that we can change whenever we want?