Summations Only

What I am saying is that criminals break laws all of the time. That is why they are criminals. Are you then arguing that we should get rid of all the laws that criminals break? If so, we wouldn't have any laws left. You are arguing for complete anarchy.

Where did the Founders, or anyone for that matter, claim that the right to bear arms is unlimited? The courts have consistently ruled that the 2nd Amendment was based on existing philosophies which allowed for people to bear common arms, but not unusual or extremely deadly arms.

quote:

---

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose . . .
--US Supreme Court, DC v. Heller 2010

---

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Yes, but where did the Founders say that the individual right to bear arms was unlimited? Yes, that is how it works. That is how the Constitution is set up."The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, . . ."--US ConstitutionThe US Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional or not, and what the Constitution means. That is, unless, you reject the US Constitution. Simple question, what does the Constitution say about the appointment of US Supreme justices and how they should be paid?

False. The government can still put in place regulations that limit which arms you can buy and own, but they can not stop you from bearing arms that are sufficient for self defense. That is what the Second Amendment means, and that is how the courts have ruled, the very courts that have been given the power to interpret the Constitution by the Constitution itself.

Where in the Second Amendment does it state that every person can own any weapon they chose and be able to brandish that weapon wherever they want?The courts have ruled. They have found that it Congress can limit which arms can be sold and who can buy them. They have even found that it is constitutional for states to require registration of weapons. I have already referenced the cases that define these rights and powers. What more can I say?

How does a ban on 30 round magazines and assault weapons prevent people from bearing arms given all of the other arms they can purchase? The Constitution also empowers the courts to decide if a law infringes on the Second Amendment, and those courts have found that bans on specific weapon types, registration of weapons, restrictions for felons and the mentally ill, and restrictions on magazine size do not infringe on that right.The claim that any restrictions on gun purchases or ownership infringe on the 2nd amendment is a baseless claim, and it runs contrary to 70 years of court decisions.

Just to be clear, SCOTUS does not have the power to make the laws. They only have the power to determine if the laws violate constitutional rights after the laws have been enacted by the federal, state, or local government.

Where is that language in the 2nd amendment? It is the Constitution that gives courts the power to interpret the Constitution. It is the courts that decide what the Constitution says, not you. For a long time now the courts have stated quite clearly that the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right, and that regulation of arms is constitutional.You can't throw out the court decisions and still claim to be upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is not a buffet where you get to pick and chose what you will accept.

The Branch Davidians, Waco, Texas, 1993.

Battle at the Alamo, 1836

Earlier the point that was being made is that an armed citizen can not defend themself against a well armed army of overwhelming size. Having even an AR-15 is not going to stop a laser guided bomb from striking your house. It seems a bit silly to say that people need semi-automatic rifles to stop the government from suppressing them when semi-automatic rifles will not defend them from an army. I also used the Waco, Texas incident to further illustrate the point.

That is exactly what the National Guard is, and previous militias throughout US history were armed by the state or federal governments. You really don't think that people were dragging their own cannons to battle, do you?

Just read that sentence about 5 times and let it sink in.The states DO have a militia.

Where I live, it is called the Idaho National Guard.

The National Guard is the state militia. Yes, it was. The current government is based on the Constitution, not the preceding law.