Your constitution says you can own and carry guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you can not. Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand the constitution?
No, my responce is prove your assertions. Explain to me why you believe these are valid views and why they provide a more usable environment for understanding what is going on then others.
What do you want proven? That the second ammendment is absolute? Even if one does not believe that (I personally do from a simple libertarian point of view rather than that of a constitutionalist) then surely the level of infringement of 2nd ammendment rights currently seen must indicate to you a validity of the statement "Congress either doesn`t understand or ignores the constitution".
The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their neighbours what they could think.
Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997?
We really don`t need a "law count", more new laws are passed than old ones are repealed or fall into disuse. Therefore there is an increasing law count, of course a lot of laws have counter-laws that contradict them but this does not reduce the law count, infact it effectively increases it by making there a larger number of things for which one can be convicted of breaking the law. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"