The Second Amendment does not, has not, and will not guarantee unregulated access to and use of all arms. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.
Actually, I believe it does. That's why it was written that way. As an absolute check on the lawful (constitutional) behavior of the govt. The fact that beyond a handful of years following the founding, it was not completely successful is a different argument.
On the Federal level, it actually was fairly successful for a fairly long time. Where, and when was the first Federal gun control law? 1934? earlier?
Where we first saw serious erosion was at the state and local level. Now, under the system our founders set up, states and localities were intended to operate under the State Constitutions, and while most either directly copy, or closely mirror the Federal Constitution, there are differences in the language of many of the state's versions of the Fed 2nd Amendment.
The fact that we have accepted so much infringment for so long that nearly all consider some degree of infringment the natural order of things does not mean that the infringements do not exist. Only that we no longer think of them as tyranny.
The legal concept that things are "bad" goes back to feudal nobility. Those selfless enlightened rulers of that gentle age were always loathe to enhance their personal wealth. Right.
The idea that things are "bad" or "evil" was used as a way for the rich to get richer. Your wagon broke loose, ran over a peasant, and killed him, poor lad! your wagon is a dangerous evil thing, and must be surrendered to the crown (or their personal representative in this vicinity), as penalty.
What/ no, thou canst do that, twas an accident!
Well, we could throw you in goal, instead.....
Er, the reigns, my good sir!
The wagon, or the mill, or whatever caused some harm, taken (or banned) by the crown, all for the public good, of course...I see the same concept still at work today.
Today, we only take the "bad" things from bad people, which I gather includes cash, boats, cars, houses, etc., (all ill gotten gains), and of course, the guns (dangerous), and the dope (illegal), etc......
But that's not all they do, nor all they want, now is it? Bad people hurt & kill with guns, so all the guns have to go. That's their mantra, and in nearly 50 years of personal observation, I have yet to see them back off from it. The most reasonable thing I have ever seen the anti gunners do is stop shrieking their message when there is clearly little or no support (such as after 9/11). The don't ever stop saying it, but the do stop shrieking it when its very clear no one is really listening.
Now a decade and some goes by, and there hasn't been another clear slap in the face (or punch in the gut) to remind the insulated elite what the rest of the world has to deal with daily. So they go back to their old, comfortable ways, thinking that the greatest threat to their life and safety is guns in the hands of people who don't work for them. Oh, and they are generous enough to include our safety in that viewpoint, as well. After all, the little people do deserve
something....
And where does our obsession with what people own (and lawfully use) come from, if not the above greed of the elite? Look back, before the 20th century, virtually no one gave a rat's behind about what guns you owned, or how many. All that mattered was what you DID with them. And all that mattered about what you did with them was if you were shooting people for fun and profit. That was a serious crime. What you did with your guns short of violence on others was of no concern to anyone, really. (and no I'm not forgetting market hunting or poaching, but that's another issue).
We had shooting galleries as public entertainment in our inner cities in those days! And by and large, the only things that got shot were the targets in the galleries! Cops often didn't carry guns as they walked their beats in those very same places! They did carry a good stout stick, and were quite given to using it, to stop trouble. Quite often, those arrested made nearly full recoveries. And neither the patrolmen, nor the cities got sued, either.
(shifting gears)
Another thing that further clouds all discussion is terminology. Our side has defintions that we believe are just, right and proper. But so does the other side. They are wrong, but refuse to see it.
They see "gunowner" as anyone who is holding (or has access to) a firearm. And they don't make a moral distinction between those who act responsbily with arms, and those who don't. To them, because some "gunowners" are bad, all are bad. To them, anyone who steps off the pavement with a gun is a "hunter". From the trophy hunter to the punks who shoot up road signs and the insulators from power lines, they are all the same, to them.
Oddly enough, shooting small birds with expensive shotguns does not seem to send them into mouth foaming frenzy. They just consider it distasteful.
We think of gunowners and hunters as decent, responsible people, like ourselves, and denounce those who are not.
Neither side is as pure as the driven...hypocrites abound. The biggest ones I see are on the anti side (that may be tunnel vision, but I doubt it), as most if not virtually all of those demanding gun bans are either armed themselves, or protected by paid professionals, with guns.
(got more, will save it for later..
)
