In proving that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a premise that makes no logical sense, you have a LOT to do. Get busy.
There is a great deal of irony in this whole debate.
Originally, the idea that the state or local governments would try to disarm their own citizens was a pretty absurd notion. They felt the greater risk of this would be from the federal government, not state and local governments.
Where the irony comes in is that the 2nd was, in part, about preventing the Feds from having too much authority over the States and the people. The presumption, as described in Federalist 46, was that an armed populous could combine to create a much larger fighting force than the Feds could gather (about 25 times larger) under the supervision of the State governments.
Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.
This is why this ruling has been tearing me up, personally. On one hand, I'm extatic that my rights are no longer being infringed by my local government. On the other hand, my anti-federalist inclination leads me to abor the ruling as it is just a further example of federal authority extending further in scope and the authority of th estates being superceded by federal authority.
I've admitted to having a hypocritical stance on this particular issue in the past. If I thought for a second that not incorporating the 2nd could result in de-incorporation of oter ammendmets and result in a reduction in federal authority, I'd be more than willing to forgo my individual right to bare arms for the greater good of the nation (Obviously as someone who claims to hold Anti-federalists views, I believe that a strong central government is generally detrimental.)
But I realize that this isn't going to happen at this point. It's too far gone and there are too few people who hold views like mine. Even your "extreme" small-government types aren't nearly as extreme about it as I am.
So I basically admit that I'm being a hypocrite on this particular subject. As I have in the past. My thinking is that if my worldview has no chance, I might as well try to keep my individual rights from being infringed in the process.
And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.