What laws exist regulating, or limiting the exercise of religion. List them. Post a list of all the outlawed words that the government prohibits the public use of. Post a list of laws that limits the right to peaceably assemble. Post the list of laws limiting the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Post all the laws that regulate the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments.
The obvious is that MANY things were discussed in the debates leading to passing the 2nd A. And YOU have searched far and wide for... years. And have found nothing to counter this devastating FACT. This validates my point. And you also validated my point that the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd A does NOT automatically include "everybody" (or "every able bodied male" or... whatever qualifier you want) in another thread. That's two in ONE week. And it's only Wednesday. We'll make of you a "gun-grabber" YET!
you haven't provided any relevant facts. you pretend "keeping and bearing" doesn't stop the government from banning OWNING. that is inane silliness. and we don't care who the militia involves-IT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE NEGATIVE RESTRICTION upon the government If it did-then the Lautenberg Amendment wouldn't apply to regular army service members. IT DOES.
well Cruikshank and Miller didn't say what you imply. the lower courts were full of incorrect decisions. But if you were correct, Miller's position would have been dismissed due to standing.
The important thing is that YOU haven't provided any facts. YOU'RE the one defending the claim that the 2nd A was intended to... defend, guarantee, enshrine, uphold... (whatever word you want to use) some "right" to own firearms. And it would be soooo easy for you to find some reference to a discussion about gun ownership in the debates in Congress leading up to the approval of the wording in the 2nd A. Just like the document we were discussing has plenty of references in the debates to standing armies and conscientious objectors and state obligations and which government (state or federal) should regulate the militias... I mean it WOULD be easy if... such references EXISTED. I will leave it to any reader with a moderate or better level of intelligence to ponder what this means.
Prove me wrong? I don't think you've even understood my point. You just confused the ratification of the Constitution in one state to the debate leading to the final wording of the 2nd A in Congress. You actually thought that the Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution.
...of the Constitution. Not of the Bill of Rights. Besides, even if it HAD been the Bill of Rights, the ratification of amendments in the states comes AFTER it's approved by Congress. Do you know the meaning of "leading up to..."? Too much history, constitutional procedures and ... basic English language... for you to catch up on...
Stingers are man portable. No one is trying to own a nuke, but stingers or laws should be on the table, alongside mortars and other man portable weapons systems.
Mortars do not weigh 300 lbs ffs. The NFA is unconstitutional, lacking an analogous provision from the time of the founding era. See Bruen. If you are a proponent of this restriction, the burden is on you to cite the analogous provision from the founding era. Spoiler: There aren't any, as the draftsmen of the act crowed about in the committee meeting minutes prior to passage when they were jerking each other off over how novel an idea it was.
numerous posters-with more than sufficient intelligence to destroy the garbage you post-have constantly cited quotes from the founders that clearly support what i say. Your game of trying to pretend that the Negative restriction on the federal government is somehow limited by whether someone is in the militia is complete and utter bullshit
his errors come from the incorrect attitude that the second amendment is about what the people can do versus the correct position that the second amendment is about what the federal government CANNOT DO
do you believe the second amendment should force the federal government to treat these weapons the same as firearms?
The m30 weighs aout 300kilos, so I was thinking lbs, it's about 600lbs But, the m2 is what 42 lbs, so according Wild Bill, who seems to think the only constraint to 2A is 'bearable' 42 lbs is bearable. I challenged is 'bearable his the only constraint' idea, anyway. Has anyone challenged NFA yet? If not, it's still law. Give me a liberal court, and you will see Bruen struck down. It's an asinine ruling.
SCOTUS has ruled that no right is absolute, see Schenck v United States and Wash DC v Heller. 'Shall not be infringed' goes only to the right, not to the scope of that right. Heller's constraints on 2A are compatible with 'bearable'. Bruen is asinine, but it is a ruling.
