I disagree. We see all sorts of mental gymnastics here that are clearly intended to dismantle a portion of it.
I am not the one who is arguing that "shall not infringe" means the Congress can do whatever it likes. That is an assault upon the Constitution. It is you who are making the argument. You are an enabler.
If a law is made and if it infringes and if the Court agrees to hear it, then yes, arguments will be made and the Supremes can decide broadly or narrowly the impact of the case.
It is clear from what they wrote that the Framers wanted the armed citizenry to be the antidote to a standing army. Does it make any sense to you that the Framers would cripple themselves by saying only obsolete weapons could be kept? They wanted their unorganized militia to be unbeatable by a standing army. For them that meant each citizen would be armed with the same class of weapons as the infantry.
See above.
This is why you fail. They did not say we have the right to keep and bear muskets. They specifically called for a right to keep and bear arms. They did not call for an individual right to have crew-served weapons. It is clear that if the intent was for citizens to act as a counter to a standing army then whatever individual weapons the army would have the Framers wanted the citizens to be so armed. The purpose did not change because the nature of the individual weapons did.
It also helps to read what the Framers wrote about this and a broad range of other Constitutional issues. I am right because I read what they wrote and understood why they believed it was necessary for the citizens to be individually armed.
I grasp it just fine. Once you slip away from the Constitution, the reasons for its parts and the reasons for the Bill of Rights it is very easy to be swayed by our common enemy, the statist politician.
Without specifically saying so you are either at statement 2 or 3. You are happy with some tyranny as long as the tyrant agrees with the opinion you hold today. A little infringement is fine with you.
You realize that back then they didn't have the bomb technology we have today right? A militia of citizens today will not have access to bombs, but the military will so advantage military still- even if we allowed citizens to carry everything a soldier can. But on that, you think grenades should be legal? What about rocket launchers? After all, individual infantry do carry those.
This is not the first time. It is the most glaring.
This is yet another example of how far apart your position is from the Constitutional, natural rights view. We all have the right to self defense. We do not get that right from the state. You believe, based on your statements that if I am unwilling to give up my right to defend myself I must be for murdering children. I believe that puts me on the right side of history with you on the other side.
Rocket launchers are not carried as arms. They are an adjunct to arms. Not all carry them. Selected people do.
I do not believe you will even see it coming.
That has been true in this country for a while. There is no guarantee. In fact as we move away from the Constitutional protections I see a violent revolution as more likely, not less.
About Our Definitions: All forms of a word (noun, verb, etc.) are now displayed on one page.
