Comment: for now suppose we'd have to deal with what we got, but

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: exactly (see in situ)

for now suppose we'd have to deal with what we got, but

Michael Boldin's 10th Amendment center comes pretty close, though without ACLU's fundraising capability and lawyer network.

This is what Jonathan Turley said, after DC vs. Heller:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/top-liberal-constitut...

A Liberal’s Lament: The NRA Might Be Right After All

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District’s decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers’ intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right.

though he's being intentionally evasive when it comes to semi-autos, standard capacity magazines... and rocket launchers; he mulls publicly against 'semi-autos and high capacity magazines' while playing the classic liberal hoplophobe canard of "what about rocket launchers and nukes!"-card, but leaves it open with, 'what say you, my readers?': Rocket Launchers and the Second Amendment

To which I say: Rocket-launchers? ABSO-F'ng-LUTELY: YES!

Nukes? Not so much; though if determined, won't stop anyone with resources and know-how.

That said, if we are to be specifically constitutional, "to keep and bear arms" in 18th century context meant to 'wield well, proficiently': one CAN target with a rocket launcher with relative accuracy, but 50mile blast radius is NOT 'wielding your weapon well': it's in-discriminant! Which, kinda defeats the purpose.

But the key to 2A was to thwart govt tyranny; there's a specific reason why Jefferson used "a free state" NOT a "a free State," (smallcase means 'state of being,' the capitalized means THE State, the Leviathan) not to mention 2 vs. single comma:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.

One version was passed by the Congress,[27][28][29][30][31]

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[32]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

So technically, if we were to be absolutely principally consistent and strict constructionist and originalist in upholding the Constitution, I'd say ANY arms the govt can have, the citizens MUST be free to acquire, equally .oD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul