"Alcohol is not protected by name in the constitution.
Then why did it require an amendment to allow Congress to regulate and prohibit it?
Your thesis just fell apart. Thanks for playing."
You are no longer arguing the second amendment. You are arguing property rights, not the same thing at all. It is an unrelated tangent. The right to own stuff is not the same as the right to own arms under the second.
Just because you want to wander afield does not mean that I do.
Pay attention, Jim, this is important.
I am arguing that your entire mindset is faulty. I and others here have demonstrated it by numerous examples. My citing prohibition of alcohol is just one of these.
As long as you believe that the Constition grants rights to citizens and that the gov't can do whatever it likes unless there is a specific Constitutional prohibition against it, you will be wrong.
Maybe you like living under an all-powerful gov't, but we don't. We can recognize what the Constitution is intended for. I'm sorry you can't.
Now, if you would be so kind as to answer the question, we can continue. Why did it requre an amendment to allow Congress to prohibit alcohol? Under the theories you have put forth, there is no need for this. The people have no Constitutional right to alcohol and Congress has no Constitutional limit on its power to prohibit it.
So why all the fuss with amednments?
Please answer.
SD