And remember, it was generally agreed, by the courts, the media, and much of the public that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights but was the justification for the National Guard. As ridiculous as that is, it was the prevailing belief.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with part of this. The belief that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard, etc. was NEVER the "prevailing belief" of the public. It WAS the prevailing belief of a very VOCAL minority, who desperately needed us to believe that THEY spoke for all of us.
They constantly told us that their point of view was held by the majority of Americans. That was a lie. One of many.
They used (and are still using) the tactic of the "Big Lie".*
They did have some support in the courts, from "activist judges". They had near total support in the popular media (the only exception being a few people on talk radio), and some support in certain social circles, notably wealthy liberals and "ivory tower" types.
They refused to accept the fact that 1770s English meant what it said. They claimed to believe in a "living Constitution". (the Constitution IS a "living document" there is an amendment
process built in to it)
But their idea of a "living" Constitution didn't accept the amendment process as good enough. It took too long, and they were too likely to fail to obtain their goals if they used it. Their idea of a living Constitution was that the Constitution said what
they said it said, and any parts that disagreed with that should be ignored, if they couldn't easily be rewritten to conform to their views.
They took the point of view that our 2nd Amendment rights existed only because of the 2nd Amendment. AND that the 2nd Amendment only allowed the right to arms for "well regulated militias".
Another lie. Actually multiple lies, folded into one.
Their argument ignored multiple facts about the Constitution, and what the Founding Fathers wrote in it. First, and foremost, their argument against our "right" to keep & bear arms existed only because it was granted to us in the 2nd amendment. Another lie.
ALL our rights, every single one, enumerated (named) in the Constitution, OR NOT, do NOT come from the Constitution. They come from a higher power. The Founders were quite clear about that, stating it several times, in different ways.
"inalienable", "God given" , "endowed by our Creator", "natural rights". Again, 1770s English, these phrases MEAN SOMETHING. They are not just padding so the document reads well.
The Constutution (notably the Bill of Rights) GRANTS NO RIGHTS. Not one. It RECOGNIZES certain rights, it does NOT grant them. And if one actually bothers to READ what the Bill of Rights says, it is a listing of GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS concerning those rights.
Congress shall make no law...
Shall not be infringed...
No man shall be...
No warrant shall be issued...
The Bill of Rights is a listing of things the Government is NOT ALLOWED TO DO.
And, the Bill of Rights even contains the fact that there are MORE rights than the ones listed, AND that those rights belong to the people, or the states, respectively.
Pretty well written, actually, and I think easily and clearly understandable to anyone who's eyes and ears are not covered by their buttocks.
But the anti gun bigots simply ignored all that. Anyone who pointed that out was ridiculed, defamed, demonized, what ever tactic was possible. (again, the tactics of the Big Lie)
If you believed the Founders actually meant what they wrote, you were "stuck in the past" and "adhering to the beliefs of a bunch of rich, dead, white, slave owning MEN" which simply no longer applied today. They believed their version was right, everyone else was wrong, and that should be the end of the matter. And so they told us, over and over, and over though their mouthpieces in the media. (again, the Big Lie)
They seized on the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment (a well regulated militia...) as the sole reason FOR our right to arms, when for a couple hundred years that exact clause had been understood to be the
explanation WHY the government was not allowed to infringe our right to arms.
Heller was a decision that simply never should have had to have been made. And it was not entirely a "good" decision, because it was written in the same Supreme Court legalese as the
Miller case that left the NFA 34 standing, and untouched.
The "good" thing about Heller is that it is a modern decision. One the anti gun zealots HAVE to recognize. They cannot pooh-pooh it and toss it aside because it is a hundred, or two hundred years old, and "times have changed".
Less good is the language of the decision which is being
interpreted by some lower courts and branches of government (notably some states and some cities) as allowing any and all gun control laws, that stop short of complete, outright prohibition of firearms by class.
In other words, they believe they can legally restrict the hell out of any thing they want (whatever the "evil" gun
de jour is) as long as they don't
completely ban possession, it is legal for them to do so.
Unfortunately for us, they are correct, after a fashion. Any, and every law passed IS LEGAL, until a ruling court says it isn't.
It took decades before DC's "handgun ban law" got to the Supreme Court. (the DC law didn't actually technically ban handguns, it stated that you couldn't have a handgun "loaded" or "fully assembled" in DC. Not an actual ban in so many words, but a practical ban in effect)
Much of the time it took to get to the Supreme Court passed simply because there was no one of suitable "standing" and who was both willing and able to pursue legal redress through the court system. ("standing" is a legal term, essentially meaning that the person bringing suit has to have been personally affected (harmed in some way) by the law. since it was a DC law in question, only a DC resident could have standing, in the eyes of a court)
* The Big Lie
A propaganda technique, today ascribed to Dr. Joseph Gobbels, who was Hitler's propaganda minister. He didn't invent it, its been around probably as long as mankind, Herr Gobbels just codified and instituted it as official policy...
Essentially the process is this, Tell a Lie, tell a BIG LIE, tell it often, keep telling it no matter what arguments are brought against it. Marginalize, demonize, shout down, or outright physically suppress any and ALL opposing arguments and those making them. Keep telling the lie. Do this, and over time, the public WILL COME TO BELIEVE THE LIE IS THE TRUTH.
it can work with any topic.