The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

You have no right to do/own these things, and thus, my statement stands.
In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

Which the court has indeed so defined.

 

The 2nd amendment does not grant congress any legislative power. It restricts congress's legislative power. So would you like to try again?

 

And you want the guy who is going to be a murderer at the end of the day to have unlimited access to any weapon they want.

 

Can you please show where “arms” is defined as “any type of weapon”?

 

Really? Nothing ambiguous?

Give me an objective, non-interpretation definition of “regulate interstate commerce”.

 

Where is the term arms used in article I, section 8? I don't see it.

 

I have no freedom of movement on non-privately owned land?

 

It implies that evil people kill innocent people. Or do you think good people kill innocent people?

 

And that definition does not in any way include “any type of weapon”.

 

You do not have a right to enter the WW.
You do not have the right to own nuclear weapons.
Restrictions on these things do not restrict your rights.
Thus, my statement stands: In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

Nope - just bearable arms.

 

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”

The unorganized militia are part of the land forces.

 

You referred to the word 'arms'. I don't see that in your quote.

Also, where is the legislative power to create a law preventing the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon?

 

So you agree, the government can restrict my rights (my right to be secure in my person, which includes freedom of movement) in the interests of security if there is a chance I might commit a crime.

 

Your failure to understand my post can only be deliberate.

-You do not have a right to enter the WW.
-You do not have the right to own nuclear weapons.
Thus
-Restrictions on these things do not restrict your rights.

Therefore, my statement stands: In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

The word arms is in the 2nd Amendment which is what really applies.

Congress has the power to regulate the land forces, including any forces the people and states form. If they decide to regulate the weapons those forces may possess, its no different than the Key West Agreement banning the Army from operating fixed wing armed aircraft.

 

I have a right to freely move so long as I am not on another’s privately owned property. What right does the government have to restrict my freedom of movement on public land?

 

This power, when applied to the individual, is limited by the 2nd.

 

Your right to freely move does not apply to all publicly owned property.
Thus, your argument fails, and my statement stands:
In the US, we do not restrict the exercise of rights because someone might break the law.

 

Indeed. And the 2nd defines neither “arms” nor “keep and bear”, leaving interpretation of those terms up to Congress and the courts.

 

Exactly. I might break the law in a highly secured area so the government restricts my right to freedom of movement in those areas.

 

Which the court has done.

 

And which can be reinterpreted again.

 

The Court has done so numerous times in numerous ways.

You are referring to Scalia when you say "the Court"