No, he'd be interpreting that part... and frankly, I think it's high time we reclaimed the word "interpretation" from the Left and put it to its proper use. The English language is inexact, and must be interpreted. Ludicrous interpretations (such as in Wickard or Grutter or Roe) are to be discarded, but the words still need to be interpreted.
For example, let's have a look at the following law:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law" can be read an absolute as easily as can "shall not be infringed." Should it be interpreted in its absolute sense? If a religion believed that its adherents needed to set off air horns in the street at 2:00 AM every night, could Congress pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of this religion? Don't laws against slander, threatening, conspiracy, and incitement to riot abridge the freedom of speech? When the New York Times published classified information, it broke the law... do you believe the Times had the right to publish because it enjoys freedom of the press? Don't laws against libel abridge this freedom? If you try to hand your petition, signed by millions, to the President, the Secret Service will drag you away... doesn't this abridge your right to petition the government for redress of grievances?
The answer is no, it does not, because the Constitution is English and nearly all statements made in English have "subject to common sense" as part of them. A parent tells a child, "I'll take you to the zoo on Friday." Thursday, foreigners invade, and there's bloody street-to-street fighting, with armored vehicles commanding the highways and a 24-hour curfew on pain of death being broadcast from trucks. So the parent doesn't take the child to the zoo. Did the parent lie? Did he break a promise? No, because what he really told the child was, "I'll take you to the zoo on Friday, unless something happens to make that totally unreasonable." The latter part is implied. Similarly, the Framers didn't intend us to use the Constitution to commit suicide. Congress can make it illegal to slander, to conspire, to threaten, to incite riot, and the libel. And, to tell you the truth, I'm really not too unhappy that the feds would know about it if a bunch of fanatics started buying up machine guns.
OK. Whatever.
Congress can make it illegal to slander, to conspire, to threaten, to incite riot, and the libel.
Well, I think they have. But what property does any of that stuff damage? Whose rights are infringed by those actions? (I guess that depends on what the definition of infringe is.) I'm not really sure that those should necessarily be federal crimes. From what you've said, you seem to be one of those emotion-driven people I try not to talk to. Later.
It says Congress shall make no law, period. It does NOT say that LOCALITIES may not have ordinances against public nuisances. Get a grip. You're babbling. But then that's what I expect from someone who is just another gun-grabber and victim disarmer.