[robertpaulsen]

"So according to what you've written, the Second Amendment means the RKBA shall not be infringed by the Federal government, and the Commerce Clause means the RKBA may be infringed by the Federal government."

Isn't that something?

I wonder why the NRA didn't support a lawsuit challenging the federal 1968 Gun Contol Act (and the 1994 AWB amendment) on second amendment grounds?

It was never done.

[tpaine]

Ken H wrote:
"So according to what you've written, the Second Amendment means the RKBA shall not be infringed by the Federal government, and the Commerce Clause means the RKBA may be infringed by the Federal government."

Isn't that something?

Its more than 'something', paulsen. Your flip answer is clear evidence that you know you're making irrational arguments, -- and just don't care. You're exhibiting very weird behaviour, my boy.

I wonder why the NRA didn't support a lawsuit challenging the federal 1968 Gun Contol Act (and the 1994 AWB amendment) on second amendment grounds? It was never done.

The NRA has a vested interest in keeping the gun control pot boiling.

[Ken H]

"So according to what you've written, the Second Amendment means the RKBA shall not be infringed by the Federal government, and the Commerce Clause means the RKBA may be infringed by the Federal government."

Isn't that something?

It is indeed.

Please explain how you can maintain that the correct reading of the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government to ban assault weapons and at the same time the correct reading of the Second Amendment does not.