that is absolute. That being no exception. Are the Bundys correct that the 2nd means they have the right to have guns while in jail? The law restricting full autos, registration and high fees along with background checks, etc has been well established since the late 1930s.

Sure; all of them. Everyone has an absolute right to exercise every one of his rights. They also have the responsibility to remain accountable for their actions to their fellow men and women and to not, by their direct actions, harm another. Using the law in an attempt to 'control' behavior, which you or some folks or even maybe everyone on the planet, find repugnant is like trying to hold back a tide around a little sand castle on the beach. The best we can hope for is to hold criminal aggressors responsible for their actions. Humans are not more powerful than nature and always affect the best outcome when working in concert with it. Self-defense is a natural right and natural instinct.

Gun-control is an exercise by which the uninvolved work against enabling potential criminals. It's a moral purity thing.

a general, blanket prohibition.

One does have nearly an absolute right short of proven criminality, age, adjudicated mental incompetence. The government has the obligation to keep records of these duly-processed disqualifications, and present them (in the case of gun purchase) at the time of transaction. "Good cause" beyond this state obligation is an oft-used abusive way for local authorities to deny rights, esp. with regards equal protection of the law.

If we look at the National Firearms Act that puts many more restriction on one type of firearm and that law has stood for a long time in the courts and as law of the land. I don't see any court applying the rights you think the 2nd do to those autos, buying and owning. The same restrictions could be applied to hand guns and semi-autos and still, by that law, be constitutional.

There is a middle ground on the 2nd. Both sides, for and against, firearms on the extremes argue for extremes.

and if you read Miller, you will find that SBSs are not protected, but full autos might be. SBSs aren't protected only because there was no evidence presented that SBSs had a military use.

If for some reason it was taken back to the Supreme Court.

Had there been anyone countering the government you points they would easily have shown the Miller court that short barreled shotguns were in use during World War 1

To the law, enough to make a fuss about it. So, it seems it hasn't been challenged so as to put the country in line with, say, Switzerland where citizen militia is required to keep a full auto in the home. (In that way, citizens in the U.S. would have access to "well-regulated" arms; that is, arms suitable for infantry in the modern era.) The restrictions you mention are a burden on average American citizens (taxes, "may issue," 4th Amendment restrictions, registrations, etc.), but of course will not restrict the criminal, thug and terrorist.

But must be locked up, only taken out of the home to train with and that training is mandatory. Concealed is only allowed with a reason for it. All gun are registered. Even bullets. Your full auto would not be yours and can not be transferred etc etc. I'd be more than happy to change to the Swiz laws and happy to see you use them as an example.

The rest of the laws in the U.S. would apply for all other weapons. The Swiz full-auto restrictions you mention are certainly less restrictive than those in the U.S.

simply because there are those that think you need a "WHY":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/126210841

Too many undocumented concealed gun carriers in Chicago and NYC.

...is sufficient "good cause".

but it seems to me that you post way more than you need to, and certainly you're not posting anything new here.

I propose therefore that for posters like you we create a "posting watchdog" to monitor your posts for "content necessity" and/or redundancy, and to act as a gate-keeper to prevent unneeded posts (do you REALLY need to post more that 1x per day?). Furthermore, I propose to setup a committee to ensure that the "watchdog" acts according to the posting guidelines defined by the committee. In time I foresee a national database created to track - state to state - individual "high risk" posters to ensure that they are following the posting rules - regardless of the state.

Grudgingly, to make sure that our 1a rights are not infringed and to ensure that an even playing field is maintained, we'll allow for the creation a grievance committee - we'll call it the NPA (National Posting Association).

Now the NPA won't be popular with everyone; there will be many who claim that the NPA simply advocate for bullies who want to post "rough-shod" over their fellow citizens - posting redundant, unneeded posts, and worse, posting offensive (challenging!) material inside "No-posting" (safe) zones.

It's unnecessary - even ridiculous you say? Well, show us "good cause" for any of your future posts, and we'll submit them to the committee for approval (unless you're one of those crazy NPA members - you know, the ones who declare "you can have my keyboard when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"...).

that pesky 1a is just a tool to shield bigots, and let them spread their evil propaganda.

subject a constitutional right to the whims of local law enforcement. Does anyone think that local law enforcement should have control over who gets to vote? What if the local LE is racist and determines hat only whites get to concealed carry? Would that be ok?

Yeah, leaving it up to local law enforcement is a great campaign donation machine.

By an incredible coincidence it turns out that the people that get permits are almost always those that "support" the sheriff in the elections.

In Chicago Tom Dart (Cook County) was really bummed out that we went Shall Issue. Saw all those "donations" flying right out the window.

Coincidentally also where a number of his prisoners in Cook County jail have gone as well. Out the window, down the street and long gone.

"to comply with the law" since a CCW license/permit is required in most places to carry concealed.

Fortunately, most states don't have such foolishness as a requirement of the permitting process.

...like so many other media outlets, can't get the basics right.

"California National Rifle and Pistol Association" google that.

Period...end of discussion. I will not accept anything less than being able to defend myself and family.

or making a large donation to the local CLEO's re-election campaign.

At least in Michigan.

simply being gay is good cause. One of my daughter's friends, who is like family to us, would have been there if it were not for a broken radiator hose.

...who probably didn't go through the requisite checks that law-abiding people otherwise have to.

A good cause to carry a concealed firearm would be a shooting in a nightclub filled with innocent Americans.

I think that would be a pretty good reason.