Funny how you concentrate on the perceived insult and fail to address the claim of your disdain for the constitution. I accept you concession. There is no reason whatsoever for the pro-gun side to accept restrictions that violate the constitution; as this is all the anti-gun side offers, it, and you, are not interested in common sense.
The Constitution protects the right to own and use 'all bearable arms" - including firearms like the AR15,et al. Common sense, therefore, says these weapons cannot be banned.
Then you really don't have much to offer in a gun control forum in any thread involving gun control in the US.
It sounds like you're saying that you're fine with the govt using disingenuous and deceptive language to fool the ignorant into accepting laws that dont do what the govt claims they'll do, such as banning the import of sporting rifles by calling them machine guns. Is that, in your opinion, how legitimate consent of the governed is achieved and maintained in a democracy?
the 2nd amendment never even came up as an issue till modern times, the final decision is still out because of the amendments arcane wording
no, the paramount issue the founders faced was a standing army, the 2nd was sloppily written as an after though as muskets were not huge death machines then
These folks seem to understand it: The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542 Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23. Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20. Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20. Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3. The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times.. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
We've had a standing army since 1775. The very year that Congress passed the first militia acts they funded the doubling in size of that army, from the First American Regiment to the creation of the Legion of the United States.
if you take into account the wording of Article One Section Eight and the Tenth Amendment, it's almost impossible to claim that the federal government has any proper power to regulate the small arms-(ones that citizens would normally keep and bear) of private citizens acting in their private capacities. where the second amendment becomes so important now is its application-through the 14th amendment and McDonald v Chicago-strikes down so many state laws
Muskets were weapons of war, by the far the firearm most issued to troops. What good would muskets do the militia today? Do you think G. Washington would approve of his potential militiamen and frontier families having an AR15 above their transom and a box full of loaded 30rd magazines? Why not?
That doesnt really answer the question. Are you saying 'no'- Obamas deceptive wording of his import ban wasn't in line with democratic values of consent of the governed, or are you saying 'no'- it doesnt matter because deception is a legitimate means to fix the 'sloppily written' constitution?
What 'mind reading'? Are you suggesting: Obama wasn't lieing, he just didn't know wtf he was talking about?
