Replies

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.

“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. “

No you and everyone else is responding to a very specific idea, that the second amendment does not extend protection to the private ownership of artillery. You have not offered any direct historic links between the second and any such a right and you have wandered all over the constitution. The idea is simple. If there is a right to artillery under the second, then someone somewhere way back in 1789 would have mentioned it. Congress would have addressed it when they wrote the enabling legislation for the militia; some early court would have upheld it. None of this happened.

“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.”

Again you confuse your personal opinion for the law. You remind me of Ashley Wilkes pining for the long gone days of the antebellum south. This is all very noble and entertaining but is says nothing about reality. You need to produce a legal constitutional argument. You have to go from what was really said to what was really said to reach a conclusion and not from point A to point Z without hitting the points in between.

“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.”

This has NOTHING to do with the second amendment. You are arguing property law and not gun law. Stay on topic please