Profile photo of

You sidestepped my entire response. The door was already opened and a foothold was allowed for this sort of attack many years ago. I am not arguing philosophy or even stating the ideology of pussified “Murica….. What I am saying is that our Judicial Branch already has an established control measure put in place with that law in addition to the NFA laws of the 1960’s.

Sledjockey, my apology if I wasn’t more clear. Frankly, I was largely responding because of, not to your response. I thought yours could stand alone on its own merits, and I had no argument whatsoever with it. My tangential response was, in effect, saying that BECAUSE the courts now have their precedents firmly entrenched, it will be even harder to break that loose because the other prong of that attack is on the people. There will be limited challenging IN the courts, because the arguments will be kept in the realm of the media and the other two branches of government (Congress and President), both shaping, and catering to the emotional responses of the public. When the “public safety” issue comes up, it doesn’t come up in the courts. It doesn’t have to because of case law. Therefore, all the President (and his “team”) have to do is keep the public moving more and more toward further restriction, so he can successfully keep using his cell phone and pen..

I don’t believe the 2nd Amendment is in substantial danger in the near term, at least. Though few in America understand it, or even much of anything about the Constitution, there’s still a general reluctance to actually change the document itself. That could come later, but not yet. It will all be accomplished through restrictions on what types of weapons will be available for legal purchase, where and how they can be purchased (edging toward background checks between private individuals, perhaps even relatives), what kinds of ammunition is legal for the public to own (we’ve already seen test runs of that with the term “cop killer bullets” in the media), etc. And they’ll chip away at who can own or have access to guns. “Of COURSE there will be no assault on the 2nd Amendment, Mr. and Mrs. America – that’s constitutionally protected!” Even Hussein has told us that very recently. No, it will only be the “common sense” {choke!} measures of taking away those that pose a “public safety” risk – get them out of the gun-buying loop. It will be partial arguments, framed as complete justifications and explanations, fed to a clueless and well-groomed public that believe the media is reporting what’s really happening, how others are really feeling, etc. Who could possibly favor handing a gun to a paranoid schizophrenic? That has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment (they’ll keep telling us – as if that constructs a complete logical argument, and the public will buy it).

I have no quarrel whatsoever with your post, and just didn’t feel it needed amplification directly. I simply chose to go on a tangential (but I believe closely connected) route from there. The “opposition” is looking at all angles, and coordinating them “beautifully.” And few see just how well they’re doing and getting away with it. The courts are already largely sewn up, as you point out. (Now – somehow give Obama the opportunity to appoint at least two more Supremes – possibly even just one – and we may find a reawakening of the courts not because they have to be reawakened, but because they see more opportunities to establish further radical precedents. And it will be harder to get the people to argue with that “progress” if it comes.)