Bill, keep in mind freedoms exist for everyone, and the aspect of "freedom of speech" etc. that people tend to forget is, "you have the right to exercise your freedoms any way you see fit, AS LONG AS that exercising your freedoms doesn't take away another person's freedom".
If you look at the list of items you posted, in each case, they require one or a group of persons to take away another person's rights in order to exercise the things you listed. You are free to libel and slander someone in our country, happens all the time, just look at the tabloids. But that doesn't mean you are free of being charged in a lawsuit with libel and slander. If you think about it, you're free to be a criminal as well, and the government is free to arrest you for it
but getting back on track
if you think about the 'right' to free speech, that speech was intended to allow the "people" to speak against the Government without repercussion, correct? Since when did the 1A mean you could say anything? I don't think it ever did. Free speech requires responsibility that it is believed you are speaking truthfully. Intentional slander, lieing, speaking against someone with knowingly false statements has always been considered wrong and potential for a lawsuit.
it's really no different with the 2A. We have the right to keep and bear arms, and yes, being as it's suppose to be without infringement, that would mean any weapons used by military infantryman should be accessible to the regular man, as if they are ever needed for militia service, it's their personal weapons that would be used, not state supplied weapons since the state isn't stockpiling weapons for that purpose. So what good are the militia fighters if they only have bolt action rifles and double barrel shotguns and whomever they need to fight is using real assault weapons?? And to go with the RKBA, there is the responsibility to not use those weapons incorrectly or recklessly. The RKBA has never made murder acceptable. It's never not made armed robbery or other armed criminal activities those with the highest penalties.
The 1A and 2A require the 'people' to use them responsibly, they do not remove the misuse of them from prosecution. Now, as to something like a machine gun, I think there should be no restriction on ownership, but there being a restriction that only in a time of the militia being called into service would they be allowed to be carried lock and loaded. Want to go to the range, fine, as today, it should be unloaded etc. I would also think it reasonable that being it's purpose would be only for times the militia would get called up (you can't effectively argue a machine gun is an effective hunting weapon) that such weapons need to be locked up in such a fashion that a child in the house (i.e. your out of control teenager who wants to do another columbine) can NOT access it.
As I think most people recognize, a machine gun isn't a reasonable HD or SD weapon. Would you really want to fire a MG in your home with your family in the house?? Considering most of the rounds you would fire would likely exit the house, and if you live in my type of neighborhood, enter into a neighbors house if you are aiming at the sides of the house, I'd consider that extremely reckless use.
So in our countries current state, there is not much cause or need to fire a MG anywhere other than a range. But I don't think we should be banned from owning them. And considering the number of states with Constitutions that plainly state the people have the right to self defense and protection of property, I can't see how any of those states could have laws preventing CCW. That of course leaves states like NY, NJ, MD which have NO RKBA proviso's to not allow them if they so choose. It would be nice though if they would honor the other states residents RKBA.
