American gunmen for God

Freepers Think It's Perfectly Understandable That Some Freedom-Loving Patriot Would Assassinate The Colorado Prison Chief

There is some pretty scary stuff going on.

Everybody agrees that before the Civil War the Bill of Rights only constrained the federal government and not the states or lesser jurisdictions.

And the same is true regarding other restrictions expressly placed on the federal government that are to be found in the actual body of the constitution.

But decades after the adoption of the civil war amendments courts began to read the due process clause of the 14^th as imposing on the states constraints previously imposed by the constitution only on the general government.

Mostly and most recently this has been the work of liberals, has been bitterly denounced by conservatives, and has not involved the 2^nd Amendment.

State regulation of firearms was limited in all that time only by constraints in the state constitutions, usually similar in wording and spirit to the 2^nd Amendment.

But recently under pressure of conservative ideology and most certainly not out of consistent adherence to interpretive principle, Scalia and others extended the 2^nd Amendment in McDonald to the states.

But McDonald explicitly allows for pretty tight regulation of firearms ownership and the right to carry, as well as outright prohibition of types or classes of firearms.

And yet despite that McDonald was the camel’s nose under the tent that was all the gun aficionados needed.

Many are now solidly convinced the 2^nd Amendment guarantees an individual and nearly universal right to own and carry arms against interference from any layer of government.

Of them, many insist no restrictions as to types can be imposed by government and nearly everyone must be allowed to own or carry, openly or not, any or nearly any type of weapon.

Many others, including some who have written as much in conservative outlets like NRO, hold that in any case there is a natural, moral, and God-given right to self-defense that implies a right to own or carry one’s weapon of choice, regardless of what the constitution or laws may say.

And now the really bad news.

Many of these gun enthusiasts are convinced that either or both of a ban on future sales of assault rifles and a ban on future sales of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would amount to a tyrannical infringement of liberty so great as to justify at least some sort of violent resistance.

Many more agree that outlawing personal ownership of assault rifles or large capacity magazines, whether coupled or not with mandatory buy-backs or confiscation, would be such tyranny.

And I don’t think these assholes are kidding.

Nothing so dangerous as armed men with the bloody delusions of God and morality on their side.