The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

200 years of jurisprudence, legal precedent, and Congressional action say you are wrong.

 

lol. Our supreme law of the land, is quite express in its declarations.

 

What makes you think there is not one in place already Hardly wise to advertise, wouldn't you think

 

Really? 200 years of all that stuff says that the constitution does actually contain language giving the union power to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

Please show me this 200 year old language.

 

Yes it is

 

Congress, the lower courts, and the Supreme Court have been interpreting the language of the Constitution and all the Congressional rulings and court precedent of the last 200 years say your interpretation is wrong.

The government legally and constitutionally can and does prevent people from owning certain types of weapons.

 

And clearly the data proving you wrong is monumentally stacked against you

 

What data is that? The most idiotically literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment possible without any concern of the legal rulings surrounding it?

 

Because, according to our Second Amendment, you should have no security problems in your area.

 

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution articulates a power given to Congress. The 2A articulates a right given to the people. They work in harmony with each other, but they are also distinctly different from each other with regard to who (Congress or the people) they are addressing.

 

Just like our Second Amendment and what is expressly enumerated as Necessary, to the security of a free State; not any Thing, else.

 

All that is moot. The may certainly be deemed illegal to possess but they are hardly unattainable in todays world.. Which brings us right back to the "Only the lawful adhere to the rule of law" and the lawless in this country care nothing about it's laws, constitution and live by their own set of rules..

So why not address those folks first, or are these trouble spots off limit in the eyes of the leftist?

 

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

 

So the government should allow anyone who wants to to own a multiple launch rocket system because somebody might have one smuggled in from another country?

 

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State.

How many security problems would there be in Your area, if a contingent of militia had to muster in a local parking lot, and present Arms, every Sunday?

 

And just how DO YOU know what is being stockpiled in this country, crystal ball?

Interpretation of anything constitutional or enforcement of laws doesn't mean a damn thing if you allow criminal strongholds and sanctuary states and cities to go unmolested., and that's exactly what the left is allowing in this country today..

You embolden the criminals and accost the law abiding gun owners and actually think this is the proper channels to a gun free society LMFAO

 

My interpretation? I'm not offering any interpretation. I'm simply stating the fact that the constitution contains no language giving the union any power to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

 

Hyperbole games and ridiculous banter just to avoid the real issue.. The key word in you hyperbolic post is "might have one smuggled in from another country?". You're pretty close to reality but you just can't manage that last little hop to get there The lawless is your concern, sooooo close man!

 

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

Is that allowed when in discussion with the left?

 

Kind of hard to clandestinely stockpile and hide tanks, Mobile Missile launchers, etc without using any form of digital communication and popping up on the NSA, FBI, and ATF radars.

 

Ask yourself, why do we have police my help with some of the more silly question like this and surely to pop up again and again and again

 

That’s your interpretation of what the Constitution says. Specifically a mindlessly literal one that has been rejected for a couple centuries now.

 

What is the difference between lawful weapon owner and lawless mass murderer before the trigger gets pulled?