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.
“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.