Kevin talks about New Jersey

Here. And I've got a larger point to make (and probably not that popular).

Kevin makes the point that the McDonald case was such a game-changer because it applied the 2nd amendment to the states, via the 14th amendment. This is possible due to what I consider to be an over-reaching of the purpose of the 14th amendment, which was to make it clear that freed slaves were now US citizens, and were due all of the priviledges and immunities that citizens normally have. I also believe that the bill of rights was never intended to be applied to the states; that's what federalism's all about.

The reason I dislike the federal government getting all up in the state's grill is that it conditions the citizenry to all sorts of federal over-reaching, like we constantly see today. That is, IMHO, mostly because of our incredible national wealth ..... we've just got too much free time to keep an eye on the government. And that, I believe, is all wrong. Let me try to explain.

If the federal government stayed out of the states' business, we might have a very different society, and maybe not. Take the civil rights struggle of the late 50's and through the 60's. The federal government got involved, and I feel that was mostly necessary, but they over-reached. Now, black people are looked at as being the beneficiaries of favorable federal policies that the now don't deserve. If black Americans had won their rightful place in society by showing that they were productive, reasonable folk, it might have taken them a lot longer to get where they were in the 60's, but it would have been through societal realization that they weren't a bunch of thugs.

The federal government has guaranteed that black Americans are viewed as thugs.

The same thing applies to 'enumerated' rights. It is the duty of the citizens to police (and that's an active verb) the states. If the states' deny a citizens rights and they don't do anything about it, they've got no one to blame but themselves.

See, I'm an adherant to Thomas Jefferson's ideas on how to hold the government accountable: through a bit of rebellion, and yes .... the death of a couple of tyrants every now and then. It is from Jefferson's letters about the time of the Whiskey (or Shay's) Rebellion that we get the quote about the 'tree of liberty' and the blood of tyrants.

If you read past the 'blood of tyrants' part and take in the whole letters, you can readily see that Jefferson was disposed to the idea of rebellion. In Jefferson's opinion, rebellion lets the government know were its' limits are. You can govern, and encroach, just until citizens start the tarring and feathering, because the death of a petty tyrant or two is next on the agenda.

It's just my opinion, but that's what's missing in today's society. We've decided that we'd rather let the courts decide what rights we get. It's time we let the government know that next time they over-reach, it may have costs they don't want to pay.