Nullification. Right to disregard unconstitutional laws.

It makes all the sense in the world; you merely don't understand the concepts. There is no Regulation with Prohibition. The proof is that the FDA does not weigh and measure the accuracy of black market products as is done with open market products.

 

Explain how you can regulate something without prohibiting something. Give me one example.

 

I know several judges. When I broached this subject with them, they turned and left in a rapid pace, the silence was punctuated by their footsteps..............They were elected democrats

 

That's a problem on your end, obviously.

 

nothing but diversion, i got it.

You cannot claim Commerce includes that which precludes it--Prohibition. Regulation cannot include Prohibition since there is no Regulation of Commerce.

We have a Commerce Clause. Do you object to the faithful execution of our own laws?

 

Let's use the gun lover interpretation of, to regulate; it means, to make regular, not to Prohibit it.

 

Ok, give me one example of making something regular that doesn't involve prohibiting the things that are irregular.

 

I am not sure of your line of reasoning. Legal Commerce must be regular. Prohibition precludes lawful Commerce and Regulation of it.

Let's use the gun lover interpretation of, to regulate; it means, to make regular, not to Prohibit it.

How is any Thing in Commerce declared Prohibited, Regulated by Government? It isn't. Thus, it is not Constitutional to Prohibit since we have an unamended Commerce Clause.

Thus, regulation must stop short of Prohibition under our Commerce Clause and Constitutional form of Government based on that social contract with the People.

 

Again, can you come up with even one example?

 

Did you miss the concept of lawful Commerce as enumerated in our supreme law of the land?

Fixing Standards is one form of Regulation while not Prohibiting a class of Commerce. Arms are one example. There is no reason not to fix a Standard for a class of Arms for citizens who are considered specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated. Our Second Amendment specifically applies to that which is enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

Only the right is cognitively dissonant enough to sacrifice the End of our War on Poverty to the Means of our War on Drugs; contrary to the dictates of plain reason and legal axioms. Prohibition has never worked in the history of the United States. Only the right continues to insist on repeating historical mistakes while claiming they are not really like that, afterward.

Al Capone should be considered a patriot to our Ninth Amendment, in that alternative.

 

By "standards," what exactly do you mean? Like "rifle barrels shall be measured in millimeters rather than inches?" That kind of thing? That seems like a weirdly trivial role to enshrine in the Constitution, but even so, wouldn't that be a prohibition on selling rifles by marketing the number of inches the barrel is? Or do you envision "regulation" to be just a purely advisory role? Like they are to say "we would prefer that you measure your barrels in millimeters, but whatever, its cool either way?" If so, why would the founders have needed a clause in the Constitution to allow that? Anybody can do that, you don't need a Constitutional power to just voice an opinion.

 

One Standard could be a class of Arms meant for Persons who are considered to be specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated. A literal interpretation applies to well regulated militias.

MOD EDIT>>>OFF TOPIC<<<