Henry Vilas wrote:You quibble. We have a constitutional government. You seem to think rebelling against that constitutional government is allowed under the Second Amendment.
And don't compare our constitution, with an independent judicary, with dictatorships like North Korea. Do are also believe they are truly a "people's republic"?
Not trying to butt into a nice discussion with Henry & Dangerous...
Do we have a constitutional government? With warrantless wiretaps, "free speech zones," permits required to protest, power to seize property from one owner just to hand it to another, power to indefinitely detain Americans, power to compel individuals to buy products from private companies, etc, etc. (not even mentioning the unconstitutional attempt to ban rifles) How does our government match our constitution? It looks to have more in conflict with than in common with the constitution. It's only when we pile on layers and layers of judicial opinions that we can squint and say it kind of looks a little bit like rule of law in a way.
And that "independent" judiciary... the Supreme Court has declared its dependence on Congress ("great deference") in many matters and areas. Is our judiciary really a guarantee of constitutionality anymore?
I do not suppose any "right" to overthrow a constitutional government. But an unconstitutional one, that right is irrevocable (see declaration of independence) and beyond question. Then we get back to that question of the consent of the governed. I don't see that consent going away anytime soon, however vehemently we disagree on this or that policy matter these days.
But all this is a straw man, anyway. The question for an "assault weapon" ban is, is it narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate public interest? Evidence says no. There is no evidence that such a law would change crime or homicides in any measurable way. The NIJ said as much in evaluating the President's gun control proposals.