You insist on putting words in my mouth to make your arguments. First it was "my" definition of regulate which you totally made up. Now it's "the infirm and mentally challenged"? Where did I say that? Get your $hit together or we are done on this thread. I WILL NOT be misquoted by you or anyone else on this forum. Do we understand each other?
I said the insane and the feeble-minded. Do you believe the insane and the feeble-minded should have the right to keep and bear arms?
"You've been the one promoting the States-right interpretation of the Second Amendment."
More correctly, I have been the one saying the second amendment is a limitation on only the federal government, which is why state gun laws vary. I didn't know you agreed with that.
"The business of the state of California, New York, New Jersey, etc. is their business and their business alone."
Exactly.
And if the citizens of those states wish to limit gun purchases to one/month, that is also their concern, not yours or mine. I don't understand why you're bitchin' about it.
I was not deliberately trying to misquote you, Sir, and I apologize if you feel I was doing so. Everyone's so defensive on this thread, but I was attempting to group your subclasses into a larger class of people (the infirm and mentally challenged). Nonetheless, my beliefs as previously stated could be extended to your subclasses (the insane and feeble-minded) as well. Presumption of innocence. If they're adjudicated mentally defective, ban them outright.
I'm not bitching about States rights. I'm bitching about your interpretation of the Second Amendment, but it seems that this discussion has gotten so long in the tooth that I am beginning to become myopic in my talking points. The Federal government should not make any law abridging the free use of firearms by the people. If the States wish to bar their citizens, its the problem of those respective States if the excrement hits the rotator, among other things.