We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, March 20. 2008
Our friend Dr. Merc invited us to address his piece on the Heller gun control case, titled The Roots of Fear. He believes that the purpose of the 2nd was to balance federal power with state power, including the states' power to raise armies of their own - and that the NRA has instilled unnecessary fear in gun users for their own institutional purposes.
As a humble farmer and no lawyer, my take on the history of the 2nd is that it is a mere reaffirmation of ancient English common law which enshrined the right to self defence to all combined with an affirmation of the military power of each state. Since the Bill of Rights is all about being clear about the rights of the individual and the limits of the power of the Federal government, it makes no sense to me that the authors would have slipped anything in there with a different purpose.
We recall that the Bill of Rights was a bit of an afterthought. Many thought it was unnecessary, and that such rights of the people were assumed. In the end, NY and others refused to sign without those basic rights being made explicit.
At that time in America, no-one would have even considered taking away anybody's private weapons.
In any event, I think that the plantiff Mr. Heller made his case when he observed that he can carry a weapon on his job, to protect VIPs and politicians - but not to protect himself and his family. That makes him a second-class citizen in Washington, because I doubt that Mr. Heller could afford his own bodyguard.
Viking, who listened to the arguments on C-Span, says:
Lithwick at Slate reviews the oral arguments here, which makes Dellinger's position clear:
Perhaps Liberty is not high on his agenda? Dellinger is walking proof for the necessity of the Bill of Rights, because that "penumbra" is where most of our rights exist (including the rights to privacy, abortion, etc etc). It seems to me that he comes from the position that, if an individual right isn't made crystal clear and specific, then it doesn't exist. He wants to always tip the balance towards government power, and I think that impulse is un-American and ignores Amendment Nine - which I think says it all:
The outcome will be interesting, but not as interesting as the case would be if some restaurateur would take NYC's trans-fat ban to the Supreme Court. That would be really fun.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Those are some handsome pistols. What are they?
I really have appreciated the posts, links and comments around CC options. They have tipped the scale for to towards the SW special versus a clip/semi-auto type as my wife will also be expecting to be competent with it in my absence. Later as the budget allows, I'll add a semi-auto to the arsenal for me.
Phil, those are Colt Pythons, of the silky smooth action, and a trigger break I've heard described as like a glass rod snapping. Chambered usually in .357 Magnum.
It only makes simple logical sense to allow citizens to own weapons as there is no way possible to prevent criminals from obtaining and using them. The only thing that banning weapons causes is defenseless law abiding citizens against armed predators. I don't want to fund nor live with a police force as large as required to make up the difference for armed law abiding citizens.
I'm gonna have to up my game. You keep coming up with the great stuff I was gonna write....great job my man.
Thanks Habu! Just trying to follow you, Buddy's and other great commentors on here.
I could get into a long essay on Mr Mercury's Roots of Fear but I don't want to waste my time dredging up the research that I know will prove his thesis suspect. Not all garbage but a heaping pile nonetheless.
My advice is recognize Dr. Mercury for what he is. A blog site owner using MF as a free advertising spot with his contrarian offerings......so go out and buy an M-16 variant with he biggest clips you can buy,lots of ammo and when the government turns to tyranny unload the clip. Believe me the National Guard can't stop all the gun owners of America from keeping our freedom.
In the "oh yeah" department....I qualified Expert in the United States Marine Corps with an M-14, M-16, and 1911 .45 ACP.......... Montana prairie dogs fear me from 800 yards out and yesterday I set a new personal best in the bench press of 350 lbs...still not bad for a 60 year old guy.
One last item...the META GONE WILD tapes have sold out.
Quit that lying, you hairy lizard. Every last one of those tapes is in your closet along with your pink tutu and Blush-Tush lipstick.
I'll have you know I'm more of a black, low neckline dress with a strand of pearls type. Five inch heels and Ferrari red lipstick and fingernails.
Well, OK ..I had to add just a wee bit more:
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty.
Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.
These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists . The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument . The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic . The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says .
History of the Second Amendment.
The claim that the 2nd only applies to militias, or states, is not only invalid historically and logically, but also as a simple matter of construing the English language. If the 2nd read:
An educated electorate being necessary to a free society, the right of the People to own and read books shall not be infringed
Nobody in their right mind would claim that therefore only voters or librairies could have books. Or that you could only have books at home, and couldn't walk around with them. Or that only little books were allowed...
DC.s ban on handguns does not leave Msr. Heller without a weapon.
He can keep shotgun(s) and/or rifle(s) in home, still.
He is not leftweaponless, and is disingenuous in his claim that "he can carry a weapon on his job, ... but not to protect himself and his family."
"He is not leftweaponless, and is disingenuous in his claim that 'he can carry a weapon on his job, ... but not to protect himself and his family.'" - Leag
Correct. Again, it's all about the NRA pushing it to the extremes. Forget that old shotgun -- what you need for home protection is an automatic assault rifle! Yee-haw!
"My advice is recognize Dr. Mercury for what he is. A blog site owner using MF as a free advertising spot with his contrarian offerings" - Habu
1. It's not a "blog site," silly. It's this great big thing called a "web site". There are almost 1,000 original web pages, over 2,000 pictures, over a hundred videos, and hundreds of guides for various aspect of the computer, specifically video, audio, Windows, etc. The video how-to area, alone, has hundreds of pages of instruction.
2. Since, like Maggie's, I don't carry any advertising, it's a little hard to see how pushing my site does any good. If the links I suggest were off-topic, then I guess you could call it "advertising", but how can you say that when they're on-topic? Moreover, how can you say that when they're specifically written in response to an article here, like the current one? If that's "advertising", it sure is a lot of work!
3. Do you want different opinions or don't you? You seem to forget (or simply be unaware) that there are various branches within the conservative movement, and we're not all going to agree on everything. What you consider "contrarian," the next person might consider "a breath of fresh air."
And for someone who treats the Maggie's comment area like his own personal blogsite, constantly posting entire articles that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic, I'd say it's pretty cheeky of you to accuse others of using it to their own ends, no?
BD: Thanks for the link. As Habu implied, I'm sure the old dollars will just start rolling in with the increased traffic.
"it makes no sense to me that the authors would have slipped anything in there with a different purpose."
I agree, but what I think people miss is that the states represented "the people" back then, and were proudly independent of the feds. We see the echoes of that in the way people from different states used to proudly call themselves "Hoosiers", "Jayhawkers", etc. Today, "the state" is just more government, with little distinction by the average joe between federal and state level. It's all just "the government."
But as I understand it, when the Founding Fathers said "the people", they meant everybody BUT the federal govenment, and there was a natural assumption that the people, in turn, would be represented by their respective states. As I noted more than once, it would be something of a stretch to think that the Founding Fathers thought that pea-shooter in your closet would do any good if the federal government ever became tyrannical.
And giving "the people" the legal right to arm themselves on a constitutional level was a seriously ballsy move -- given how many times in history "the people" had risen up and overthrown their own govenment -- but it was all part of the checks and balances and had to be done.
This brilliance on their part is undone by the current Supreme Court case.
For 200 years, this balance has worked perfectly. Now, thanks to activists and revisionists, we're suddenly going to reinterpret the Founding Fathers' master plan?
Well, as I said in the article, it doesn't matter. We're past the point of possible tyranny, so when they reinterpret it to mean "the individual", the only people it's going to affect will be the denizens of D.C. And their gun law -- which obviously isn't working -- would have been rescinded at some point, anyway. Hence the futility of the whole thing.
Many historians have called our Constitution and Bill of Rights one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind.
If the Supreme Court chips away one of its major cornerstones -- which they probably will -- what will the historians say then?
You clever fellow. Not advertising ...yet ...but the sirens song awaits and if the "web site" grew tremendously in volume well, advertising would confetti your site. But a point well made.
As for "Again, it's all about the NRA pushing it to the extremes." Well, You seem to forget (or simply be unaware) that there are various branches within the gun lobby movement, and we're not all going to agree on everything. What you consider "extreme" the next person might consider "a breath of fresh air." hey hey....
"But as I understand it, when the Founding Fathers said "the people", they meant everybody BUT the federal govenment (sic), and there was a natural assumption that the people, in turn, would be represented by their respective states.
This statement is exactly contrary to what both the Federalists AND Anti Federalist desired. They didn't want any form of government be it state or federal to have a say in their gun ownership, knowing that if those entities had a say they would eventually erode the right.
"These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government . Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument . The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.
Guncite quote is argueing effectively for the DC government position.
If all right to keep and bear arms is for is to keep a free state then Ammendment 2 prescribes the means, a well regulated militia.
Msr. Gura is trying to convince Justices of a seperate individual right.
But even he isn't suggesting right to keep and bear arms is to protect indivduals who don't like the government.
Are ya daft lassie?
Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument . The whole of the population would comprise the militia
That is not DC's position in this case. Quite the opposite, they want total, unconditional control over gun ownership.
Sweetheart, all the people is still a militia within the scope of guncite quote and, might I presume, your arguement now.
Msr. Gura and Heller's case is not arguing but for, simply, individual right to have handgun in DC.
They ain't argueing militia rights the plaintiff is.
But none of the parties are supporting y'all's oft expressed insanity.
It is insupportable even within the scope of Federalist Papers.
Individuals have no right to revolution and those who thought they did and acted on it are incarcerated or history.
Msr. Heller is not authorized by DC law to have unregisterable firearms i.e assault rifle.
So him will have to keep a nice, short shotgun and/or rifle.
They can be registered and as I construe it they will be part of the people's local miltia because they are.
People are not state and certain rights, apply to them seperate from their municipal, county, state and federal governments, as does right to keep and bear arms.
Leag - Wrong.
While you can legally own a shotgun or liberal approved rifle in DC, residents are required to keep them under lock and key in non-firing condition - and there is no exception for self-defense.
"If you have time, when you hear somebody crawling in your -- your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Scalia asked.
I suggest the Judges try it out and when they know how much time it takes them, ponder if DC's restriction is unreasonable.
How fast can one who keeps arms for the purpose?
One minute at the outside and less if weapon is at hand and me don't have to run.
But I'd make sure it ain't one of me Xes before firing.
If it is I'd toss a pillow.
Me thinks, a look at the statute in in question reveals it just ain't that onerous as DC Appeals court avered.
Pursuant to District of Columbia Code Annotated § 7-2507.02:
Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant [see the District of Columbia Registration section] shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.
Violation of this section is a misdemeanor, and violators are subject to not more than one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. Section 7-2507.06.
In Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 400-01 (D.C. Cir. 2007), reh’g en banc denied, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11029 (D.C. Cir. May 8, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a Second Amendment challenge to section 7-2507.02, finding that the provision amounts to a "complete prohibition" on the use of a handgun for self-defense in the home, and was therefore unconstitutional. The District has appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. For more information about the Second Amendment, see LCAV’s summary of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Another disingenuous ploy by the plaintiff's was aired on television Tuesday evening.
In it a chicklett displays before the camera reaching under her bed, lifting upon the bed a guncase, unlocked it, removed a long shotgun, longer than grandpa's, unlocked a cumbersum rope lock but didn't load it.
That didn't take but about a minute.
But her weapon isn't reguired but to have a trigger lock and be unloaded.
Justices can try the drill at home and conclude the DC Court is a bit over the top, me thinks.
However they rule, right to keep and bear arms will remain considerably infringed.
But what's the point in dictating how we are supposed to keep our gun in our possession? How do you inforce whether or not the trigger lock is on or actually locked and the gun not loaded? Random surprise inspections? The criminal home invader testifies that the home owner drew a loaded and unlocked gun on him from the drawer thus nullifying the break and entering arrest?
Keep the gun reasonably safely stored but quickly accessible and usable and teach the kiddies how to use and the responsibilities that come with weapons...no need for the extra regulations that can't be enforced anyways.
Point is DC can and do so for real reasons.
Me thinks, one is the kiddies are not able for some years to be taught responsible weapons handling.
I agree, DC residents can ignore the lock and empty rules without danger of unreasonable search and siezure.
Who's to know?
And make sure the window crawlers cain't talk.
Pray tell, what are the 'real' reasons? People can't be trusted to act responsibly? My point is why have rules that you even admit are largel uninforceable and lead to reduced effectiveness of the intent to have the weapon in the first place - defense of one's home and private property.
I already gave one reason safety of kiddies who aren't trained weapons handlers.
DC only trusts those persons who have passed the extreme vetting process for registration.
The District of Columbia requires a registration certificate for every gun that is possessed, controlled or purchased in the District. D.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-2502.01, 7-2502.06.
To obtain a registration certificate, an applicant must pass a background check conducted by the Chief of Police (this is in addition to the NICS check required by the Brady Act when purchasing from a federally licensed dealer). Section 7-2502.03 requires that the Chief confirm that the applicant:
Is 21 years of age or older (with some narrow exceptions);
Has not been convicted of a crime of violence, weapons offense, or of a violation of a firearms control law;
Is not under indictment for a crime of violence or a weapons offense;
Has not been convicted within five years prior to the application of any:
Violation in any jurisdiction of any law restricting the use, possession, or sale of any narcotic or dangerous drug; or
A violation of section 22-407, regarding threats to do bodily harm, or section 22-404, regarding assaults and threats, or any similar provision of the law of any other jurisdiction so as to indicate a likelihood to make unlawful use of a firearm;
Within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, has not been acquitted of any criminal charge by reason of insanity or has not been adjudicated a chronic alcoholic by any court;
Within the five years immediately preceding the application, has not been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to any mental hospital or institution;
Does not appear to suffer from a physical defect which would tend to indicate that the applicant would not be able to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly;
Has not been adjudicated negligent in a firearm mishap causing death or serious injury to another human being;
Is not otherwise ineligible to possess a [handgun] under section 22-4503 [which includes any person who is a drug addict, has been convicted of a felony or various prostitution-related or vagrancy-related offenses, or any person who is not a licensed dealer who has been convicted of unlawful possession of a handgun];
Demonstrates satisfactory knowledge of the laws of the District pertaining to firearms and the safe and responsible use of firearms in accordance with tests and standards prescribed by the Chief; and
Has vision better than or equal to that required to obtain a valid driver's license under the laws of the District.
Finally, a prospective handgun purchaser must complete an application for purchase, and wait 48 hours before taking possession of the handgun, if the application is approved. Section 22-4508. Section 22-4508 does not apply to law enforcement officers or sales at wholesale to licensed dealers.
I haven't read any arguement in DC case which is challenging registration requirements or locking requirements, except to include handguns.
Make sure the criminal home intruders can't testify.
I had a cop tell me that. He said if I shoot an intruder crawling in the window and he falls back out, drag him back in and shoot him again. In the head.
The right to bear arms is in the British Bill of Rights as well. What, you didn't know there was such a thing? Well there is - William of Orange signed it as part of the deal for the British crown in 1690.
Try readying a gun in the dark with adrenaline pumping through your veins....
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Willy didn't want any RC's armed and even his Prod's had to the right subject to lawful restrictions.
No right is absolute.
But me own preferance for window crawlers is a weapon like Colt Python or a pillow.
First, a quick side note to Habu, if you're still here. Then it's movie time!
1. I'm not a "blogger", I'm one of these:
2. I cringe at the thought of getting an Instalanche or, worse, an Acelanche. I have some really heavy-duty bandwidth items on my site (the videos) and I'd have to take them off if the site slipped more into the mainstream, capisci?
3. Nor do I ever look at my site stats. Daily traffic numbers only mean something to blogsites, not web sites. My only concern is monthly bandwidth.
Okay, I'm kicking myself for not thinking of this sooner, but here's a clip that demonstrates an integral point in the debate. I'll add it to the web article when I'm finished here.
As I've noted, one thing that's hard for us to see is how passionately state-oriented people were in the old days. The states were basically gigantic clubs or fraternities of "we, the people" and simply weren't viewed as part of "the government" as they are today.
To demonstrate this, here's a clip from 'The Outlaw Josie Wales'. Having read a fair amount of early American biographies and such (mainly of the westward settlers), I can state that, to the best of my knowledge, this scene isn't overblown in the slightest.
(this is a special clip just for this comment and will be removed tomorrow -- the format I'm using on the web site won't stream like this will)
When that old bird sees "We, the people" in some official government document, she doesn't see We, the people -- she sees We, the Jayhawkers .
Yes, the Founding Fathers had "we, the people" in mind when they gave us the legal right to arm ourselves, but it wasn't so that we, the people, could individually fight a tyrannical federal government's organized army. Our 'protection' was our fraternity of fellow Jayhawkers, or Hoosiers, or whatever, aka our "state".
200 years of success and suddenly one of the cornerstones of our great achievement -- the longest-running democracy in the world -- is put on trial.
It is astonishing you would use a post civil war fictional movie as part of your presentation. But you did and then you topped that by being absolutely wrong on this. You're not even close.
"Yes, the Founding Fathers had "we, the people" in mind when they gave us the legal right to arm ourselves, but it wasn't so that we, the people, could individually fight a tyrannical federal government's organized army . Our 'protection' was our fraternity of fellow Jayhawkers, or Hoosiers, or whatever, aka our "state"
That was precisely why the FF wanted each American to be armed so they COULD fight the government if it got tyrannical. They distrusted all governments , even the one they were establishing. The Anti Federalists demanded an entirely new Constitutional Convention because there was no Bill of Rights in the initial document. They were finally convinced that a Bill of Rights would be the first order of business, and it was. This nation came about by the thinest of margins, and I do mean thin. When you read about how close it came to all coming unraveled it kinda scares you, but no less than Patrick Henry (Anti Federalist) was determined, as were many other luminaries, not to have the ratification process go forward.
You really need to beef up on the nations founding. Right now you're in the dark.
I wonder: would it do any good to point out two interesting little factoids about the early days of the United States (ie, 1790-1800 or thereabouts):
1) the "militia" was considered to be all able-bodied men between roughly 18 and 45 years of age; and
2) several states had laws that required -- not permitted, but required -- all militiamen to own and keep in their homes a working musket or rifle and ammunition for it, along with the other items a soldier required as field kit (blanket, mess items, clothes, etc.). All of which had to be purchased with their own money.
It seems clear that an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment protects any firearm that can be used by a single soldier in combat. Pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, perhaps even light automatic weapons like BARs and submachine guns. I see no reasonable way to argue that the Amendment gives the federal government any power to prohibit ownership of any such firearm. One might still argue that states have such power ... but then, one has to deal with the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. As well as the fact that most states have a right to bear arms listed in their own constitutions.
Heller Case is about DC, which is not a state.
DC's broad authority to regulate firearms derives from Congress's Home Rule Act statute which reads in part;
The Council of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized and empowered to make, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized and empowered to enforce, all such usual and reasonable police regulations…as the Council may deem necessary for the regulation of firearms, projectiles, explosives, or weapons of any kind in the District of Columbia.
US Congress regulates this authority.
In the thread presentation this appears:
"Dellinger asks the court to avoid turning every phrase of the Second Amendment into a "libertarian right." A well-regulated militia isn't about everyone owning a gun willy-nilly. The Constitution does not create some kind of sacred, fundamental right to guns. If there's a right here at all, he says, it's at the penumbra of the periphery " of the Constitution: in a shack behind the river where the other unenumerated rights huddle."
Dellinger lost his argument right there. To call the Second Amendment to the Constitution a penumbra must have had the judges snickering. The Supremes I would guess have a more than passing idea of the founding of the nation, the Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers plus a lifetime of other readings. I would seriously doubt if many on the Court (the liberals believe the Constitution is silly putty, to be contorted at their whim) would characterize freedom of the press as a penumbra, or refer to any of the Bill of Rights as a "penumbra of the periphery" of the Constitution: *in a shack behind the river where the other unenumerated rights huddle*. There is no unambiguous, no equivocation aspect to the enumeration of the Bill of Rights...the guys a loon.
All this talk seems pretty much pointless blather. The question should be about consequences. The NRA, in my ovservation, has taken no responsibility for the consequences of their radical position, nor for their advocacy of personal weaponry as protection devices. Most people do not have guns, and even those that do rarely keep them handy (thank heavens), so the self defense argument is meaningless--there is not sufficient data to draw a case of any kind. There are find anecdotes, no doubt, and some painful ones on the other side of trigger happy homeowners blasting away.
But those stories just do not advance the case very far.
As for the militia agrument concerning the need to defend against tyranny we have but to examine the behavior of populations that have actually experienced tyranny, which the US has not for well over 200 years, and even then it was pretty tame. In the places we can see clearly the lack of elegant hand guns has not restrained the populace for resisting, and the presence of weapons in the population, legally or not, has not made the political outcome any more pleasant.
We can hope that we will see freedom win out in all these extant cases as it has here, but we are far from experiencing that issue here. So the posturing about tyranny is a cover issue for a simple desire to own guns without recognizing or accepting any consequences for their presence in the public sphere.
I find the quality of thinking around this issue to be poor at best and made less useful by the NRA's relentless advocacy for itself. the primary beneficiary from their work, as far as I can tell, is themselves: highly paid people, fancy headquarters, political influence, and no burdens of responsibility. Seems like a perfect political position--can't lose. Their work has not improved the quality of life in America nor has it advanced the project of freedom or democracy. Rather it is damaged the prospect of clear thinking, balanced judgment, and a sense of propriety in public life.
You've single handedly produced the best blather so far. Your statements are factually incorrect. Your conclusions sophistry, and in general it's an executive level job of bull shit.
"So the posturing about tyranny is a cover issue"
Ostensibly you know very little of history. Mankind has suffered many more years under tyranny than freedom on this earth.
Those who constructed this nation new that and were perforce to prevent tyranny over their lives or their progeny's lives. Weapons have, and will always be, a way to prevent that. They knew that and acted responsibly to ensure that even if the government they were creating went to tyranny the citizenry could take it down by force of arms.
You have shown a remarkable amount of ignorance in your horribly confused, make believe world of what you think you know.
''Their work has not improved the quality of life in America nor has it advanced the project of freedom or democracy''
sez you, bboot, sez you.
''Rather it is [sic] damaged the prospect of clear thinking, balanced judgment, and a sense of propriety in public life''
From your post, this is self-evident. But remember, you are a specific person, and to extrapolte to the general is to introduce a fallacy.
Mr Gura holds that 2nd Amendment reads RTKABA may be infringed.
Swift move, lad.
Justice Stevens: May I ask this question? Are you, in effect saying, reading the amendment to say the right shall not be unreasonably infringed instead of shall not be infringed?
Mr. Gura: There is that inherent aspect to every right in the Constitution.
Justice Stevens: So we can --- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be unreasonably infringed"?
Mr. Gura: Well yes, Your honor, except the word "unreasonable" is the one that troubles us because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like.
Justice Scalia: You wouldn't put it that way. You would just say, it is not being infringed if reasonable limitations are put on it.
Mr. Gura: That's another way to look at it, Your Honor.