@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:Background checks violate the "equal protection of the laws" required by the Constitution.
It is a question of discrimination in regard to the right to defend your life
and to defend your other property, which is a lot more important
than the quality of your seating on a bus for a few minutes, a relatively trivial matter.
hawkeye10 wrote:we see with the governments anti-smoking program a willingness to make smoking practically illegal without actually making it illegal, so we must have every expectation that the government will if it can get way with it use "background checks" to make other actions practically illegal without actually making them illegal. "we the government understand that you would like to hold a protest 15 days from now, but we cant possibly get the required background check finished before 6 months time so you are SOL buddy!"
once a government proves it is unwilling to deal honestly with its citizens it must be replaced by the citizens, that government has become criminally oppressive.
From
HELLER, citing with approval
:
" Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read
interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual
right unconnected with militia service.
The most famous
was the judge and professor Thomas Cooley, who
wrote a massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional
Limitations. Concerning the Second Amendment it said:
“Among the other defences to personal liberty
should be mentioned the right of the people to keep
and bear arms. . . . The alternative to a standing army
is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist
unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How
far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this
right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there
has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by
the courts.” Id., at 350.
That Cooley understood the right not as connected to
militia service, but as securing the militia by ensuring
a populace familiar with arms, is made even clearer in his
1880 work, General Principles of Constitutional Law.
The Second Amendment, he said, “was adopted with some
modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688,
where it stood as a protest against arbitrary
action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the
people.” Id., at 270. In a section entitled
“The Right in General,” he continued:
“It might be supposed from the phraseology of this
provision that the right to keep and bear arms was
only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an
interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia,
as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those
persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance
of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service
when called upon. But the law may make provision
for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform
military duty, or of a small number only, or it
may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if
the right were limited to those enrolled,
the purpose of
this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action
or neglect to act of the government it was meant
to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly
is, that
the people, from whom the militia must be taken,
shall have the right to keep and bear arms;
and they need no permission or regulation
of law for the purpose. But this enables government
to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies
something more than the mere keeping; it implies the
learning to handle and use them in a way that makes
those who keep them ready for their efficient use;
in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary
discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of
public order.” Id., at 271.
All other post-Civil War 19th-century sources we have
found concurred with Cooley. One example from each
decade will convey the general flavor:
“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure
a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless
unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves
in the use of warlike weapons.
To preserve this privilege,
and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves
in military force against the usurpations of government,
as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden
by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and
bear arms. . . . The clause is analogous to the one securing
the freedom of speech and of the press "
[All emfasis has been lovingly added by David.]
And, horrors, they took his guns away. 
