Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

That is your legal opinion. All I am saying is we have to weigh that against some of the greatest legal minds in this country. I mean no disrespect by that but that is what we are talking about. Maybe they are all wrong and you are right but I am going to go with them.

 

Here's the thing. There is the way I would wish the world to be, and then there is the world that actually is. The simple fact is we, as human beings, are insular, tribal, frightened people who distrust outsiders, and cling to the familiar. Sound cynical? Perhaps. Definitely pragmatic.

I tend to kneel at the altar of the Constitution because, as imperfect as it is, it is the best model we have today that allows the individual to be the most they aspire to, and I believe the individual is the best hope of Civilization. I really, truly wish I could join the crew of the USS Enterprise and be and embodiment of all the hope and promise that symbolizes. We're not there yet. The bast I can do is prevent or at least promote the prevention of the will of the group from steamrolling the hopes, dreams, and most importantly the autonomy, of the individual over the group.

 

Most modern "legal experts", not the authors of the Constitution. You can take some comfort that you are in such a crowd of "experts" but wrong is still wrong.

 

You are certainly entitled to your legal opinion. And we must weigh that against some of the greatest legal minds in this country that disagree with you

 

The commerce clause has nothing to do with regulating firearms, it was intended to smooth commerce between states such as preventing a state from imposing tariffs and taxes on goods from other states.

The commerce clause was warped beyond all recognition in the 1942 supreme court ruling of Wickard v Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn in which a farmer was growing wheat for his own livestock to eat, the govt said he grew too much in violation of agricultural limits intended to stabilize crop prices and therefore he violated the commerce clause.

The farmer said his grain never left his farm, he never sold any, so it was not commerce.

The govt claimed that because he grew his own grain, he did not buy grain off the market, thereby increasing the supply of grain on the market, thereby decreasing the overall price of grain.

In other words, Wickard v Filburn used the commerce clause as the excuse to allow the govt to regulate anything and everything.

The Founders of the nation must still be puking in their graves over that abomination.

The "welfare clause" in the preamble has nothing to do with any power, and it has never been interpreted to grant the govt any power.

The "welfare clause" in the taxing section of the Constitution (article 1 Section . Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (see Federalist 41), Alexander Hamilton all wrote that the general welfare did not grant the federal govt unlimited power to provide for whatever it deemed to be the "general welfare".

John Marshall wrote in 1824 "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."

Congress can only tax for items which are explicitly delineated in the Constitution.

The federal govt cannot regulate firearm ownership.

Too bad, the writers of the Constitution were far wiser than you, and they were strong supporters of gun rights, and they decided the federal govt could not regulate firearm ownership.

But the states can.

 

My position is the same as the greatest minds ever in the history of the nation - the minds that created the Constitution. You do not disagree with me, you disagree with the people who wrote the Constitution, and those minds certainly knew what they intended. And those intentions were clearly explained in their letters.

You are still wrong. Nothing you post changes that fact.

 

I am not wrong that you are simply giving a legal opinion which the current greatest legal minds in the country disagree with. That is actually a fact.

 

He's trying to argue from particular opinions to a general rule. That strategy is is obviously fallacious, logically, but is used to establish nearly everything in legal land. Once you understand this, you can dismiss the strategy as special pleading or use it yourself, and you would be justified, in one sense or the other, either way.

 

I actually don't have to plead for anything. This matter has been decided for decades. LOL

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Is that really an argument? Lol

 

Your responses are sophomoric at best. I recommend looking up terms you don't understand.

 

You don't know what you are talking about?

Is that more mature? Lol

 

yes, especially the one's who are initially law abiding citizens/gun owners who go off the deep end and commit murders using guns.

 

Good, laughing is good for the soul. Tell me, do you laugh or find it amusing every time a mass murder is committed in this country using guns?

 

It's a statement of fact. Is it mature to respond even though you have no idea what you're responding to while google is so accessible? It strikes me as impetuous, which is a hallmark of immaturity.

 

A.mature response in a debate would be to present a counter argument. If you have none and are just expressing frustration then maybe it's time for a break

 

Don't know. The courts would need to decide if the regulation passed strict scrutiny.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok

.......

 

are you unable to understand the point-I am asking you to make an argument that what the government does is a proper interpretation of the constitution. You seem to think it is so go ahead, do it

and you are wrong, the Lopez decision said the congress did not have the power under the CC to do what it wanted to do

so again-do you really believe that the CC was intended to allow gun bans over the language of the second amendment

 

You'd have to ask them. The fact remains the government has the authority to regulate firearms.

 

why don't you stop the circular phishing phase and argue why those experts are correct

I can argue-and have, why they are wrong You seem impotent to be able to make an argument that is more sophisticated then "THEY ARE RIGHT"

 

Of course they do

- - - Updated - - -

So let me ask you. Why do so many experts agree with me? Is it a conspiracy? Is the illuminati involved? No seriously... why?

 

I'm not in a debate, and you haven't made an argument.

 

Your opinion, while fascinating, means nothing in regards to US law. The federal government has the authority to regulate firearms.

 

I laugh every time a criminal eats a bullet, especially at the hands of his "victim".