The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers ... which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

Christian news in maine.com ^ | 18January, 2004 | Larry Austin

[newsgatherer]

Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."

Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.

Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.

You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.

Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.

If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...

[Jim Verdolini]

I do not understand your point here. I wrote that I could not find anything the founders wrote that either included or excluded cannon from the second amendment. I contrasted that with a variety of quotes and an act of congress that DID list small arms specifically as being covered by the second. I, and others, noted court cases that only referenced certain classes of small arms. I asked for specific quotes from the founders or the courts or congress that included cannon in the second and, to date, no one has produced any.

I mean a real connection with the second. You know, a discussion of the amendment in which cannon were listed as covered and not simply unassociated remarks on the legality of artillery at the time.

As I have noted, there is a world of difference between something being legal and something being protected by the second amendment.

[jonestown]

Jim Verdolini wrote;
Your argument is entirely derivative. Cannons are arms of war, the second amendment is about arms ergo all arms are included.
If there is a connection...show me with proof. Find someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery.

-Jim-

---

Your reply to LexBaird, at # 346:

Lex wrote:
"You must have me confused with someone else. I made no reference to any personal wishes, nor laws regarding them. What I did was to provide you with a "scintilla of evidence" that large arms were considered appropriate for private ownership. That the "rule of law (yers)" has not seen fit to extend 2nd A. coverage to them does not change the fact that the drafters of the Constitution had no problem with private ownership of cannon."

______________________________________


You replied:
I stand corrected. I do not disagree that the founders had no problem with cannon.

I just note that there is a big difference between something being legal or normal or accepted and being protected by the Constitution as a right.
-Jim-

---

So there you have it Jim, -- you yourself admit that cannons were "considered appropriate for private use", that there is indeed "someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery."
You just disagree with our 2nd Amendment on the issue.

How do you square that opinion with an oath to support our Constitution?

---

"I do not understand your point here. I wrote that I could not find anything the founders wrote that either included or excluded cannon from the second amendment."


_____________________________________


You understand my point, as you yourself admit that cannons were "considered appropriate for private use", that there is indeed "someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery."
You just disagree with our 2nd Amendment on the issue.
jones

---

"I contrasted that with a variety of quotes and an act of congress that DID list small arms specifically as being covered by the second. I, and others, noted court cases that only referenced certain classes of small arms. I asked for specific quotes from the founders or the courts or congress that included cannon in the second and, to date, no one has produced any.
I mean a real connection with the second."

"You know, a discussion of the amendment in which cannon were listed as covered and not simply unassociated remarks on the legality of artillery at the time."


______________________________________


NO specified 'arms' are listed in the 2nd Amendment, as you well know, Jim.

You are simply attempting to pettifog the issue.

---

"As I have noted, there is a world of difference between something being legal and something being protected by the second amendment."


Yes, this is the 'Brady bunch' contention. -- That governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights.

As an officer of the court, do you support the 'BB' opinion over the clear words & intent of the Amendment itself?

[Jim Verdolini]

“Do I really need to go back and post all those quotes about ships again? I mean, its a bit redundant don't you think? “

None of those quotes concerning ships is in any way tied to the second amendment. You fail to connect the dots except in the realm of opinion.

[Jim Verdolini]

“You understand my point, as you yourself admit that cannons were "considered appropriate for private use", that there is indeed "someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery."

You just disagree with our 2nd Amendment on the issue.
jones”

You confuse an absence of comment on a subject with a position ON that subject. In other words, you take the absence of any discussion of cannon as a right as proof of the right. I worked from the other direction. I took actually discussion of specific arms as proof that said arms were covered by the specific act, the second amendment, being discussed.

I believe I am on stronger ground here. I also believe you continue to confuse “legal” with “protected right”. We are speaking of a specific constitutional guarantee, the second Amendment. Some want to argue broad property rights here when such rights are not the 2nd. The second is limited to arms. The specific type and class of arms covered is the issue. I can and have produced specific evidence directly associated with the second to bolster my view that some classes are arms are covered. Some have responded with a view that my position is simply a minimum and that the field of protected arms is far wider, When asked for proof, I get opinion and other arguments that revolve not around the second amendment, but on property rights themselves. I see this as an argument that mixes apples and oranges. The two legal rights are not related. The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.

“NO specified 'arms' are listed in the 2nd Amendment, as you well know, Jim.

You are simply attempting to pettifog the issue.”

While no specific arms are mentioned in the Amendment, very specific arms were mentioned repeatedly in the discussions about the amendment (cannon never mentioned) and even more specifically, the very enabling legislation the founders created to regulate this militia of the people, goes into considerable detail and again….no cannon.

“Yes, this is the 'Brady bunch' contention. -- That governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights.

As an officer of the court, do you support the 'BB' opinion over the clear words & intent of the Amendment itself?”

Yes, but the Brady Bunch is on bogus legal ground when they make the claim. I am not an officer of any court, just someone who has read a LOT of legal and historic opinion on the 2nd. In the world of the USA, what matters is not what ones opinion is. We all have views and most are simply wrong. What matters is what views have the rule of law.

I really believe your view would not be upheld in any serious court in the country while I believe my view can and would prevail in most courts outside of the 9th district and DC.

[jonestown]

You understand my point, as you yourself admit that cannons were "considered appropriate for private use", that there is indeed "someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery." You just disagree with our 2nd Amendment on the issue.

You confuse an absence of comment on a subject with a position ON that subject.

You made a direct comment, as quoted above. Your denials are becoming pitiful.

In other words, you take the absence of any discussion of cannon as a right as proof of the right.

The words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. Get it?

I worked from the other direction. I took actually discussion of specific arms as proof that said arms were covered by the specific act, the second amendment, being discussed. I believe I am on stronger ground here.

Your beliefs are immaterial to the issue. The actual words of the 2nd are definitive. Cannons are a type of arms, as are 'assault weapons'. Neither can be made 'illegal'.

I also believe you continue to confuse "legal" with "protected right". We are speaking of a specific constitutional guarantee, the second Amendment. Some want to argue broad property rights here when such rights are not the 2nd. The second is limited to arms. The specific type and class of arms covered is the issue.
I can and have produced specific evidence directly associated with the second to bolster my view that some classes are arms are covered.

BS. You opine that 'some classes of arms' can be declared illegal, yet you can cite no Constitutional basis for that power. - None exists.

Some have responded with a view that my position is simply a minimum and that the field of protected arms is far wider, When asked for proof, I get opinion and other arguments that revolve not around the second amendment, but on property rights themselves.

Arms are a type of property.

I see this as an argument that mixes apples and oranges. The two legal rights are not related.

More sheer bull. Arms are a type of property. [see the Congressional arguments to ratify the 14th, for proof]

The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.

And, -- it clearly says that the right to keep & bear that "type of property" shall not be infringed.

"NO specified 'arms' are listed in the 2nd Amendment, as you well know, Jim. You are simply attempting to pettifog the issue."

While no specific arms are mentioned in the Amendment, very specific arms were mentioned repeatedly in the discussions about the amendment (cannon never mentioned) and even more specifically, the very enabling legislation the founders created to regulate this militia of the people, goes into considerable detail and again….no cannon.

"Yes, this is the 'Brady bunch' contention. -- That governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights.
As an officer of the court, do you support the 'BB' opinion over the clear words & intent of the Amendment itself?"

Yes, but the Brady Bunch is on bogus legal ground when they make the claim. I am not an officer of any court, just someone who has read a LOT of legal and historic opinion on the 2nd.

Yes, and what you have read is the 'BB' opinion, supported by big government devotees.

In the world of the USA, what matters is not what ones opinion is. We all have views and most are simply wrong. What matters is what views have the rule of law.

That's my point. The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.

I really believe your view would not be upheld in any serious court in the country while I believe my view can and would prevail in most courts outside of the 9th district and DC.

Your view does prevail, Jim; and in particular in the 9th district and DC.

[Jim Verdolini]

“You understand my point, as you yourself admit that cannons were "considered appropriate for private use", that there is indeed "someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery." You just disagree with our 2nd Amendment on the issue.

You confuse an absence of comment on a subject with a position ON that subject.

You made a direct comment, as quoted above. Your denials are becoming pitiful.”

______________________________________

I do not deny my opinion. I deny that YOUR opinion of the meaning of the amendment is based on anything more than wishful thinking and stubbornness.

________________________________________

“The words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. Get it?”

__________________________________________

Yes and cars are a specific type of transportation but neither cars nor cannon are covered by the 2nd. You ask me to “get” something that you fail to prove.

__________________________________________

“Your beliefs are immaterial to the issue. The actual words of the 2nd are definitive. Cannons are a type of arms, as are 'assault weapons'. Neither can be made 'illegal'.

___________________________________________

Now that is really silly. I can produce actual legal decisions that support my view and you only offer the dictionary and your opinion. Your argument is entirely “beliefs”. You have yet to produce an argument that is more and that is tied to the amendment in question.

__________________________________________________

“BS. You opine that 'some classes of arms' can be declared illegal, yet you can cite no Constitutional basis for that power. - None exists.”

__________________________________________

The Constitution is not needed to declare some classes of arms illegal. All that is needed is to provide a valid legal argument that the class of arms being banned is NOT a class protected by the amendment. If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case.

______________________________________________

“Some have responded with a view that my position is simply a minimum and that the field of protected arms is far wider, When asked for proof, I get opinion and other arguments that revolve not around the second amendment, but on property rights themselves.

Arms are a type of property.

I see this as an argument that mixes apples and oranges. The two legal rights are not related.

More sheer bull. Arms are a type of property. [see the Congressional arguments to ratify the 14th, for proof]”

_______________________________________________


Again you are blind to my point. The characteristic of arms as property is not in any way indicative of what arms are covered by the Second Amendment. If you want to argue that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, fine, but you cannot use the second amendment for that argument.

______________________________________


“The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.
And, -- it clearly says that the right to keep & bear that "type of property" shall not be infringed.”

__________________________________________


No, it does not address property at all. It addresses arms. That they are property is outside the scope of the amendment.

____________________________________________

“Yes, and what you have read is the 'BB' opinion, supported by big government devotees.”

____________________________________________

No, what I have read is the historic record and the law of the land as evidenced by actual court opinions. What you offer is opinion.

_____________________________________________


“That's my point. The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.”

______________________________________________

No, what I am saying is that the arms that appear to be protected by the second amendment under the law is the class of arms suitable for militia use as outlined by the founders. You have offered no proof linked to the second that I am wrong. You only offer opinion.

You seem to reject anything that is not of your view not by presenting a better argument linked to fact but simply because you do not like the argument. Fine, but do not confuse yourself into thinking your view has any legal credance. For that you need specific constitutional and legal cites and you have provided none so far.

[jonestown]

The words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. Get it?"

Yes and cars are a specific type of transportation but neither cars nor cannon are covered by the 2nd.

How bizarre. You are bringing cars into the issue simply to pettifog it even further. For shame Jim.

You ask me to "get" something that you fail to prove.

Not at all.. I'm trying to get you to admit that the words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. You refuse to 'get it', and are getting desperate enough to play silly word games about cars.

[jonestown]

You opine that 'some classes of arms' can be declared illegal, yet you can cite no Constitutional basis for that power. - None exists."

Arms are a type of property. [see the Congressional arguments to ratify the 14th, for proof]

The Constitution is not needed to declare some classes of arms illegal.

Good grief. You really do contend that Congress or the States can flat out prohibit certain "classes of arms" despite what our Constitution clearly says in both the 2nd & 14th Amendments. No such prohibitory power has ever been granted to any level or branch of government.

All that is needed is to provide a valid legal argument that the class of arms being banned is NOT a class protected by the amendment.

The plain words of both Amendments do not specify "class of arms" nor 'class of property'. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a power exists to define some such "class" of bannable items. -- None does.

If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case

No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.

[Dead Corpse]

OK... so there is no Constitutional provision to allow the Government to restrict ownership of cannons, so them passing laws that restrict them are just fine with you?

Even though they have no explicit authority to do so?

Are you snorting cocaine while writing this stuff? Drinking maybe?

Did you miss the part where ship owners had purchased cannons for their ships with no squaking from the government? In fact, it was these very previously armed ships the government wanted to hire against Britain/France/Barbary Coast?

Did the cannon fairy just come along and wave her wand and those cannons on those ships appeared?

[jonestown]

If you want to argue that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, fine, but you cannot use the second amendment for that argument.

Bizarre comment again. I don't need to "argue" that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, because the 2nd clearly protects my right to keep & bear ALL types of arms. Cannons are arms.
I am informing you of that fact.
You want to argue against that Constitutional fact.
Why?

The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.

And, -- it clearly says that the right to keep & bear that "type of property" shall not be infringed.

No, it does not address property at all. It addresses arms. That they are property is outside the scope of the amendment.

Gibberish.. --- Your ability to nitpick in an inane fashion appears boundless. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.

No, what I am saying is that the arms that appear to be protected by the second amendment under the law is the class of arms suitable for militia use as outlined by the founders. You have offered no proof linked to the second that I am wrong. You only offer opinion.

You were given the link to the proof recently published by the Justice Dept, - one that confirms our RKBA's as an individual right. -- You supposedly agreed with that report, yet now you claim that the 'militia' clause limits the "class of arms suitable".

At the founding, both Militia & private individuals owned cannons, as you admitted earlier.
We still have that inalienable right, despite infringements supported by misinformed people like you.

[ThanhPhero]

That is how it reads.

[jonestown]

The right to keep and bear, as it is worded, is absolute.
I have a right to keep nuclear weapons in my garage.


That does not provide me the financing to keep nuclear weapons in my garage, however.
455 ThanhPhero

---

Nor does it protect you from lawsuits for damage done to your neighbors and property due to improper storage. Nor from any "after effects" of your Day at the Range. Nor does it coerce or put any onus on your insurance company to continue insuring you. Etc...
Much more to it that just going out and plopping a few million down on a low yield tactical nuke.
458 Dead

---

ThanhPhero wrote:

That is how it reads.

---

Sure, the way the 2nd reads, the right to keep and bear, as it is worded, is absolute.
You have a right to keep a nuclear weapon in your garage, -- if you can insure that keeping it there will never harm your neighbors. -- Big IF. --

You can't insure [nor can the feds] that you can keep a nuke safely [even if your garage was in the middle of umpteen sq miles of Nevada desert] --

-- Therefore, we have reasonable regulations on the storage and use of unstable C/N/B agents, [or even large amounts of conventional explosives & fuel].


These 'regs' have nothing to do with our right to keep arms. They are based on common sense common law.
But of course, the Sarah Brady's among us don't want to face up to common sense. They want to ban all arms.

[Dead Corpse]

Again, well said. The insurance rates alone would bankrupt even Donald Trump.

[jonestown]

I wonder, - do private owners of nuclear materials [like power companies], even have insurance against theft & misuse of the radioactive materials they possess?

Who would be stupid enough to write such a policy?

[Dead Corpse]

That is assuming, of course, that you are referring to a free market instead of the over-regulated economy we have now. Right now, the government is probably setting the regulations for insuring atomic power plants. Doesn't exactly make me sleep better at night knowing that DoE bureaucrats are the ones setting nuclear safety regs.

I'd much prefer someone with a more vested interest in their safe operation than in padding budgets.

[Jim Verdolini]

"Not at all.. I'm trying to get you to admit that the words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. You refuse to 'get it', and are getting desperate enough to play silly word games about cars."

Jonestown, it takes more than yoiur simply repeating something to make it so. There is no legal basis for your position and there is no historic case either. That leaves you with opinion alone, not enough.

[jonestown]

The words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM. Get it?

Yes and cars are a specific type of transportation but neither cars nor cannon are covered by the 2nd.

How bizarre. You are bringing cars into the issue simply to pettifog it even further. For shame Jim.

You ask me to "get" something that you fail to prove.

Not at all.. I'm trying to get you to admit that the words of the 2nd are clear. Our rights to ARMS shall not be infringed. Cannons are a type of ARM.
You refuse to 'get it', and are getting desperate enough to play silly word games about cars.

Jonestown, it takes more than yoiur simply repeating something to make it so. There is no legal basis for your position and there is no historic case either.

My "legal basis" is the 'historic' 2nd Amendment.

That leaves you with opinion alone, not enough.

Jim, this is getting amusing. --- You keep repeating YOUR opinion, as if that were enough.

[Jim Verdolini]

“Good grief. You really do contend that Congress or the States can flat out prohibit certain "classes of arms" despite what our Constitution clearly says in both the 2nd & 14th Amendments. No such prohibitory power has ever been granted to any level or branch of government.”

______________

The second does not address artillery. If it does, provide your cites and legal opinions. As to government not having the power to prohibit anything, the gun control act of 1968 alone proves you wrong. In 1967 I could buy a new Walther PPK. Today I must buy a Walther PPKS as the original arm has been banned for import. Entire classes or drugs have been banned. Even some foods are illegal. Government bans stuff every day.

____________


“All that is needed is to provide a valid legal argument that the class of arms being banned is NOT a class protected by the amendment.
The plain words of both Amendments do not specify "class of arms" nor 'class of property'. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a power exists to define some such "class" of bannable items. -- None does.”

___________

Now we come to the crux of your error. I do not have to provide any burden of proof as the state of the law as it exist IS my position. You are the one who must make what is currently illegal or regulated legal. Simply saying something is protected by the Constitution has no more force of law than my contending CFR to be illegal.

Your, and my opinion, are of absolutely no importance to the law of the land. All that matters is what will get you arrested. My view is “legal” while yours will have you in jail in a host of states before you can say “second amendment”. They will pat you on the head, say “there, there, whatever you say” as they lead you off to the clink.

_____________

“If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case
No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.”

___________

Tell it to the court. They will be amused.

___________

“OK... so there is no Constitutional provision to allow the Government to restrict ownership of cannons, so them passing laws that restrict them are just fine with you?”

___________

No, you have it backward. There is no Constitutional protection covering cannon so government can and does restrict or regulate them. This is the state of the law.

___________


“Did you miss the part where ship owners had purchased cannons for their ships with no squaking from the government? In fact, it was these very previously armed ships the government wanted to hire against Britain/France/Barbary Coast?”

___________


Do you miss the very basic and simple distinction between something being legal and protected? Obviously.

___________


“Bizarre comment again. I don't need to "argue" that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, because the 2nd clearly protects my right to keep & bear ALL types of arms. Cannons are arms.
I am informing you of that fact.
You want to argue against that Constitutional fact.
Why?”

____________

Because, while your heart is in the right place, your knowledge of constitutional law and the state of the issue in our courts is so wrong as to place you in jeopardy of arrest if you ever tried to DO what you think is legal. We need voters on the issue, not confused jailbirds.

____________

“The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.”

____________

Why, cite your cases. Provide your precedence’s. Opinion is not enough.

____________

“No, what I am saying is that the arms that appear to be protected by the second amendment under the law is the class of arms suitable for militia use as outlined by the founders. You have offered no proof linked to the second that I am wrong. You only offer opinion.
You were given the link to the proof recently published by the Justice Dept, - one that confirms our RKBA's as an individual right. -- You supposedly agreed with that report, yet now you claim that the 'militia' clause limits the "class of arms suitable".
At the founding, both Militia & private individuals owned cannons, as you admitted earlier.
We still have that inalienable right, despite infringements supported by misinformed people like you.”

_____________


You run from your opinion right to the Justice Dept recent opinion embracing an individual right (something I agree with) and then, without laying any legal or constitutional framework, jump to the conclusion that this individual right includes artillery. If you are right, show me the body of law.

[jonestown]

You opine that 'some classes of arms' can be declared illegal, yet you can cite no Constitutional basis for that power. - None exists."
Arms are a type of property. [see the Congressional arguments to ratify the 14th, for proof]

The Constitution is not needed to declare some classes of arms illegal. - JIM VERDOLINI -

Good grief. You really do contend that Congress or the States can flat out prohibit certain "classes of arms" despite what our Constitution clearly says in both the 2nd & 14th Amendments.

No such prohibitory power has ever been granted to any level or branch of government.

As to government not having the power to prohibit anything, the gun control act of 1968 alone proves you wrong.

You are quite confused.---
--- The '68 act only proves that the Feds are violating the 2nd.

In 1967 I could buy a new Walther PPK. Today I must buy a Walther PPKS as the original arm has been banned for import. Entire classes or drugs have been banned. Even some foods are illegal. Government bans stuff every day.

Bizarre comment, as it makes my point that you are a big government supporter who approves of gun prohibition.
You seem to think that because our government has abused power that this proves they were granted that power.

The plain words of both the 2nd & 14th Amendments do not specify "class of arms" nor 'class of property'. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a power exists to define some such "class" of bannable items. -- None does.

If you want to make all classes of arms protected, You need to produce an argument that does this, an argument that goes beyond your opinion. Prove your case

No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.

Now we come to the crux of your error. I do not have to provide any burden of proof as the state of the law as it exist IS my position.

We ALL agree that the 2nd is being infringed. - YOU admitted that earlier. -- Yet you irrationally contend that assault weapon prohibitions are not infringements.

You are the one who must make what is currently illegal or regulated legal. Simply saying something is protected by the Constitution has no more force of law than my contending CFR to be illegal. Your, and my opinion, are of absolutely no importance to the law of the land. All that matters is what will get you arrested. My view is "legal" while yours will have you in jail in a host of states before you can say "second amendment". They will pat you on the head, say "there, there, whatever you say" as they lead you off to the clink.

Babble on..
No proof is needed. -- The wording of the Amendments themselves proves the case.

Tell it to the court. They will be amused.

That type of "let them eat cake" wisecrack did not prove to be an amusing position for some earlier despots, Jim. -- Get some new lines.

[Jim Verdolini]

Sorry Jonestown, you obviously have no idea of how our government works. You seem to believe simply scrunching your eyes shut, putting your fingers in your ears, and endlessly repeating "the clear language" has some Constitutional meaning in the greater world.

Prisons are full of people who are equally confused.

Believe what you will but I recommend NOT mounting that chain gun on your bass boat.