The OP way of thinking is as a large part of 2nd Amendment rights loss as the brady bunch. All the while thinking he is part of resistance and doing the right thing.
Sad, where this country has gone, and is continuing to go, with thought processes such as these.
I am about interpreting the Constitution as it was originally intended. Its a simple fact that under the 2nd, prior to the 14th the States could completely ban firearms ownership and the Feds could regulate it (Read Scalia in the Heller opinion). The most libertarian legal scholars all agree that a correct originalist interpretation means some restrictions are Constitutionally valid (see Randy Barnett and Richard Epstein for two examples).
The thought processes which are problematic are the ones who are so incredibly ignorant as to deny actual historical truth. A supposed conservative who denies the actual truth to permit himself to pour his subjective meaning into the Constitution to reach his desired ends is no different than a liberal who does the same thing. So who is really damaging the Constitution?
The second amendments rights loss has derived primarily from the refusal of the courts to interpret the amendment as protecting an individual right. That changed with Heller, but even Heller is tepid: it does not recognize the 2nd as protecting a right of revolution per se. The individual rights interpretation is correct because it is consonant with the historical truth. You cannot accept historical, constitutional truths when it suits you and then deny them when it doesn't.
The reasonable regulations of firearms ownership which are Constitutionally permitted are actually quite tepid, if we understand them correctly. We would be far, far better off arguing for the historical truth, then denying it and losing all credibility.
