Interesting that you pick on the "anti-choice" people as being "one-issue voters." You wouldn't characterize the "anti-life" people the same way?
Pro-choice voters are not as monomanical vis-a-vis abortion.
Anyway, if you're saying that the "pro-gun" minority beats the anti-gun majority every election, all that tells me is that the pro-gun minority cares more about keeping their guns than the anti-gun majority does about taking them away.
You're just peddling a straw man. The "anti-gun majority" does not favor taking guns away. That's NRA propaganda. And yes, of course the pro-gun minority "cares more about keeping their guns." Why else do you think I would characterize them as "significant" and "intense"?
The Constitution doesn't define a militia.
Excuse me. I should have been more careful in composing my reply in under four minutes. The Constitution certainly identifies the militia and its role (compare with the national guard).
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
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.
If the NRA's Constitutional interpretation was as strong as they claim, then they would be challenging the law through the courts. Instead their considerable resources have been devoted to carrying the legislature.
In other words, the Constitution means whatever we decide we want it to mean this week.
Another poorly constructed straw man. Are you familiar with the concept of "precedent"? I'm thinking more along the lines of generational change, not week to week change (which is utterly impractical). As Jefferson also famously said (paraphrasing), "the tree of liberty should be refreshed with the blood of patriots from time to time." He was rather fond of a revolution every 25 years. Oh, but sure, we can leave it to Scalia and Thomas to tell us what the Constitution "really" means
I don't understand your point. The 7th amendment deals with the right to trial by jury.
*Sigh* It goes to overly literal (read: fundamentalist) interpretations of the Constitution. Trial by jury under what circumstances? In cases exceeding 20 dollars.
In order to keep you from looking like a silly biggot I will add to your post:
Also there is an even MORE significant, media led, anti gun religion.
Gosh, thanks for stepping in and preventing me from looking like a silly "biggot".
The people on the gun control side are not (generally) nearly as emotionally invested in the issue, which leads to aforementioned collective action problems and election losses. Take note, for example, of the hysterical reactions from people when confronted with the idea of merely registering and licensing guns.
Now there are some on the Left -- I met one just this weekend, in fact -- who are fanatically pro-gun (Alexander Cockburn comes to mind). But of course, as I think Chomsky once observed, there's a difference between gun restrictions in Chiapas, Mexico versus Seattle, Washington.
Also, it's worth noting the most important libertarian philosopher, Robert Nozick, agrees gun restrictions are consistent with the minimal state. I mean, it's an outlandish idea. This American phenomenon (and again, it comes from a vocal minority) -- the senselessness of it all -- is evident when we poll the beliefs of our slightly more enlightened neighbors across the Atlantic. It's just silly fundamentalism -- not unlike, anti-choice fanaticism and pro-creationist B.S. Indeed, there's significant overlap. Oh, but I'm sure Norway will become a tyrannical police state any day, being on the road to serfdom and all that...
)