[robertpaulsen]

"attempting to restrict the action of the government can just be ignored"

I didn't say that. Where was the second amendment challenge? There wasn't any.

"Why, asked another Freeper, is it not permissible to ban Bibles under the Commerce clause?"

I didn't say they could. I think it would be a free speech violation to ban bibles.

Let's stay on topic.

[tacticalogic]

Unless you'd like to clarify 385, it seems a logical consequence of that argument.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "I didn't say the could. I think it would be a free speech violation to ban bibles."

Is it not then possible to violate the right to keep and bear arms using the Commerce clause? How were you able to dismiss the Second Amendment as being irrelevant to the AWB and yet you do not dismiss the First Amendment as being irrelevant to banning Bibles?

Your statements sometimes seem consistent with the idea that the Bill of Rights is only of concern to the Supreme Court. If they don't say something is wrong, then there is nothing wrong. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way much of our government works these days.

Here's another shot at clarifying our positions:

True (False): The Bill of Rights restricts the actions of Congress and the President and not just the Supreme Court.