Having seen the legislature of Wisconsin and Minnesota try to change the constitutional position of the incoming administrators, looks to me like politicos is a case of what I can get away with, not any one side.
As for the bills, states rights are supposedly sacrosanct in the constitution. I see the Federlais trampling all over that whenever it suits whichever administration.
Or as my old work nemesis said, don't do as I do, do as I say. Speaking with forked tongue me thinks but.......
On the other hand, there are restrictions on sawed off shotguns and machine guns.
If insurrection is legal (founding of the US) and the right to arms is based on ability to do so, then by definition weapons should have no restrictions of ownership.
Relevant is that to keep and bear arms means you have to have said arms in the first place. So we can have them for legitimate purposes, but only to a point.
As for the bills, states rights are supposedly sacrosanct in the constitution. I see the Federlais trampling all over that whenever it suits whichever administration.
Or as my old work nemesis said, don't do as I do, do as I say. Speaking with forked tongue me thinks but.......
On the other hand, there are restrictions on sawed off shotguns and machine guns.
If insurrection is legal (founding of the US) and the right to arms is based on ability to do so, then by definition weapons should have no restrictions of ownership.
Relevant is that to keep and bear arms means you have to have said arms in the first place. So we can have them for legitimate purposes, but only to a point.