no federal offices in a federal park? i know a guy who got busted for pot in his car in California where it was legal, when he went to the VA.
Not anywhere I go, no. Which is great that the constitution gives congress no legislative authority to restrict the ability of the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms.
No wonder you don't comprehend the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Your reading comprehension is horrible. Nothing I said was contradictory or confusing... if you understand basic English and how Liberty works. I was simply showing how your use of "well regulated" was wrong and spurious. I then talked of how Liberty and freedom means that it is the responsibility of the individual citizen to make sure they exercise their rights properly. It is NOT the job of the government to make people jump through hoops before they can exercise their rights. Yeah; you know NOTHING about freedom or Liberty, or how rights work.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights. Here is the relevant power delegated to Congress: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; There can be no such Thing as a "private militia of Individuals" in our Republic.
And you show this by using it wrong yourself? I was trying to find some point in which we could agree on. But, if that's the case, then let's cut the crap. "Well regulated Militia" is clear. Militia is a group of citizens assembled for some military-type purpose, and "well regulated" means it's not ad-hoc, and therefore the fact that it's written on the 2nd A does not mean it applies to all citizens Those are the words written in the Constitution. That's what those words mean. And that's what they meant in the mind of the citizens at the time the Constitution was written. Beyond that, anything related to "beliefs", "intentions", "wants"... is irrelevant as to the meaning of the text itself. Even though SCOTUS decisions have arbitrarily modified this meaning. Thus introducing into our legislation an individual right to carry weapons which does not exist in the text of the Constitution. But is nevertheless, now the Law of the Land.
The introductory clause explains the difference. Well regulated militia may be exempted from the traditional police power of the State when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Where are the words in the constitution that give congress the legislative power to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms?
Same place that gives congress power to prevent the people of the several states from running a red light. I suppose. Though the real answer is that your question is irrelevant to anything I have said.
The states never gave congress any power to prevent the people of the several states from running a red light. Just as they never gave congress any legislative power to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms.
Reasons why I think the Second Amendment has nothing to do with owning and using guns for private purposes: 1) Preambles were often used in 18th century law to define the scope of a right. 2) Bear arms usually had a military meaning at the time. 3) Most of the states that had addressed the issue in their constitutions prior to the Second Amendment did not recognize a RKBA for private purposes. 4) When the First Congress discussed early drafts of the Second Amendment no mention was made of people owning and using guns for private purposes. The discussion was only about the militia. Modern day gun apologists are actually anti-Second Amendment. They aren't interested in restoring the well-regulated militia.
The states never gave congress any power to prevent the people of the several states from running a red light. Just as they never gave congress any legislative power to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms.
Scalia claimed that the Second Amendment "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Then why not start the Second Amendment with a preamble about the importance of defending hearth and home? Were the Founding Fathers really such poor communicators?
"The ship having arrived to port, we embarked" "Standing on a chair, John can reach the ceiling" Not only can the prefatory (which in linguistics is known as "absolute") clause modify the operative (or main) clause. It necessarily does in this case. If the ship hasn't arrived to port, we don't embark. If John does not stand on a chair, he can't reach the ceiling. If a well-regulated militia is not necessary for the security... well.... you get the idea....
Scalia provides an excellent discussion, accepted by the SCOTUS, now settled in law, in the majority opinion which is being used as foundation in lower court cases. Done...Law...
Judicial activism? The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or not. The Heller decision appealed to ignorance of that fundamental legal fact.
