Look up what the founders meant . Then tell me what lefty tells us it means . Two totally different definitions.
Oh, so you think it’s important to combine well regulated with militia, but not “ shall not be infringe”
Are you out of your mind? Don't you ever ask me a question before answering my question. Is that understood?
The Second Amendment says "well-regulated militia". It says that the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Congress has only the powers given to it in the Constitution. The Constitution grants the power to Congress "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"; there is no mention of restricting the arms of the people. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to further restrict the powers of the government; given that, the Second Amendment cannot expand the powers of the government not already enumerated in the Constitution.
Correct. Congress can "regulate" the militia however it wants, so long as it does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If the discussion is about what the constitution will allow....and it is....then the constitution allows for federal gun control
Exactly. The late justice ( Scalia) also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.
Every time you complain about gun control advocates as absolutist, you are wrong. Just as wrong as to assume that pro gun crowd wants no regulations.