Are you debating governmental authority to regulate private ownership of firearms based on the 2nd Amendment in this thread?
believe it or not, I have seen lots of gun banners claim that the second Amendment is where the federal government was granted the power to ban or restrict the ownership of firearms. its one of those mistakes that proves, beyond any doubt, that a person who believes that is completely ignorant of constitutional law and theory and should never ever be taken seriously in such discussions
kinda silly to insist the Founders gave us the Right to Keep Arms outside of any Militia context. if the Militia had nothing to do with it, it wouldn't be mentioned. We have the Right to Keep & Bear Arms so that we can form a Unregulated Militia during times of crisis, as per Federal law. 10 U.S.C. § 311 Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
once again you seem confused about the entire premise of the constitution the constitution gave us NOTHING when it came to the ownership of firearms. rather the founders realized that a government only has the proper powers GIVEN to it and one power that WAS NOT GIVEN to the federal government was any power to regulate the firearms private citizens owned.
agreed, I was preemptively destroying such a stupid argument before it cropped up-as it invariably does when the gun banners cannot make an argument why "commerce among the several states" means "federal powers to ban firearms owned by private citizens in their own sovereign states"
It may be reasonably argued that using guns for private purposes is some peripheral aspect of the right but it's certainly not the core of the right.
that's a silly attempt to try to limit the second amendment. do you really try to argue that the commerce clause was intended to trump the second amendment?
they spend so much time trying to dishonestly limit the coverage of the second amendment while at the same time assuming that the expansion of the commerce clause was also intended. Its why almost all gun restrictionists are left-wingers because the leftwing philosophy is mainly about expanding the powers of the government while at the same time limiting the rights of individuals
You're mistaken. It has been a matter of settled law for over two hundred years that Congress has authority over the militia as spelled out in Article 1 of the Constitution.
and that no more gives congress power over privately owned firearms by private citizens than congress being able to dictate what uniforms the militia wears gives congress the power to tell me or my wife what sort of clothes we can wear in our private capacities as citizens of the state of Ohio
it has no relevance to second amendment issues. once a militia is federalized yes. but congress never had the power to disarm state militias and congress never has had the PROPER power to regulate privately owned firearms. I don't even think those who LIKE that usurped powers try to argue that the expansion of the commerce clause was either honest or a proper interpretation of the words of the constitution nor the intent of the founders. Federal gun control is one of the biggest scams the Democrat party foisted on the people of the United States and one of the biggest failures of Republican politicians and Justices in their shirking their duty to strike it down
Why would recognizing the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms have a preamble that gives the government sole control over weapons? Who are "the people" in the 2A?
Here is the problem. we all know what the second amendment meant. Its a blanket restriction on the then new federal government acting in an area that it was never given any proper power to act in. Anyone who claims that the founders intended the commerce clause to be either a grant of gun control power to the federal government or even any jurisdiction over private citizens has to be dismissed as dishonest or ignorant. The gun banners know what the second amendment means. But they don't like that. Rather than conceding that gun control is not a power the federal government properly has, they dishonestly twist and contort the meaning of the constitution and the second amendment. The problem with that dishonesty-other than it is dishonest-that their "version" of the second amendment does not make sense when read with the rest of the constitution or the bill of rights. that requires them to engage in further obfuscation and dishonesty as well as dishonest contortions of other parts of the Constitution.
The 2nd Militia Act of 1792, written after the 2nd Amendment, decided what type of gun American citizens would be required to own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Militia_Act_of_1792
. It merely said what you had to own for one reason. It didn't have anything to do with restricting what you wanted to own. It was a requirement to own something, not a restriction on other items. If your school tells you you must read three books to pass English,that is not the same as saying you cannot read other books or own other books. SO in terms of the second amendment, it has no relevance. Only in the anti gun world is a requirement to own a militia suitable musket or rifle the same as a power to prevent you, in your private capacity as a citizen, from owning other firearms
Its hilarious watching the contortions gun restrictionists engage in to try to conjure up some authority for federal gun restrictions in a document where none were intended nor allowed
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html So the people have an individual right to bear arms, so that they can be familiar and proficient with them, to be effective when the time comes to use their arms collectively in the militia.
as I have noted, leftwing anti gun rights interpretations don't make sense. saying you don't have a right to arms UNTIL you are actually serving in an ad hoc emergency military force (the militia) is like saying volunteer firemen cannot train with hoses and ladders until there is actually a fire in progress
