You're just mindlessly parroting talking points that have nothing to do with the facts. There are minutes of the meetings that produced the Constitution and it isn't hard to figure out exactly what the intent of the Founders was for an Amendment. No interpretation is needed, particularly one like yours.
Except for the fact that they indeed do such. Except for the fact that Heller completely changed the dynamic. For firearm-related restrictions to pass constitutional muster, they must meet the burden of strict scrutiny. Any proposed restriction must serve a compelling government interest, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve only that interest directly rather than indirectly, and it must be the least restrictive approach that is physically possible. And yet no effort on the part of yourself, absolutely no effort whatsoever, has been made to attempt to explain why firearms do not belong in densely populated areas. Exactly why is this a bad thing? Explain such. Prove the legitimacy of the position being presented on the part of yourself.
The reality is the people don't have permission by the Constitution to possess all types of arms and whether you like that reality or not, it still exists. So from a pea shooter to a hydrogen bomb, figure out where the line is drawn permitting people to have permission to acquire weapons. Obviously, there are restrictions on the arms a citizen can possess and your circular case law argument doesn't fly.
What about it? Fact is, the US had a standing army in 1787, when the constitution was written.. Let me know if you don;t understand how this negates your claim.
Its clear you are unwilling and/or unable to discuss anything w/o ignoring the truth. Thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.
False. Not factually incorrect, but outright false. The united states constitution does not exist to grant permission to the people to exercise their constitutional rights as the united states government sees fit. Rather it exists to define and limit the authority of the united states government. the united states constitution exists to define what the government may not do against the people. It does not authorize the government to decide which constitutional rights it will honor and which it will not due to whether or not they are convenient. If it is legally and openly sold on the private market, it can be legally owned by any private citizen without need of government first giving permission to do such. That is how things in the united states work, and are indeed intended to work. Anything else is not a system of rights held by the people, but rather privileges granted by the government that can be revoked at any time without legal recourse. Not simply with regard to only one constitutional right, but rather all constitutional rights.
The fact is there was no standing army in 1787 and only someone who has never bothered to check US history wouldn't know that. Try reading any reliable source on the army, navy or any branch of the military. Only the USMC had members receiving pay from the government since 1775. The present day army and navy claim origins back to the continental times, but all members of the Continental Army and Navy were discharged. It wasn't until after Washington burned that the militia option was fully rejected. The standing army of the United States started in the War of 1812 and continued afterwards because the war involved Indian wars which continued after the War of 1812. My question is this: Why wouldn't an American remotely interested in gun laws know that? Why wouldn't they know the history of militias in America?
A person who thinks the US Army and Navy predates the US doesn't know the truth. Only the USMC had members getting paid since 1775 and Marines know that. The US continued to fund Marines on the high seas after the Revolution and after the Continental Army and Navy was totally discharged. Claiming an origin doesn't mean it was the beginning. It wasn't and our standing army began during the War of 1812.
