Replies

I have argued that congress has the “power” to do anything not expressly prohibited. I stand by that. Heck, they have the “power” to do stuff that IS expressly prohibited. They do it all the time. Again a better question would be, what gave congress the “right” to act in such a way. My answer would be a combination of their very own reaching and the courts acting outside the constitution.

And you're OK with this?

You are right that there is a difference between rightful exercise of power and the exercise of power. Most conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with the hopes of restoring the gov't to its rightful place.

This is a different thing than arguing about how to game the system as it is presently operating. I fear you are doing the latter (lawyering) while we are doing the former (engaging in philosophical discussion).

You seem to confuse what you believe the Constitution should do and say with what it really does do and say.

It says what it says. The question is whether the gov't is abiding by what it says.

“You are right that there is a difference between rightful exercise of power and the exercise of power. Most conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with the hopes of restoring the gov't to its rightful place.

This is a different thing than arguing about how to game the system as it is presently operating. I fear you are doing the latter (lawyering) while we are doing the former (engaging in philosophical discussion). “

The question was. “are rocket launchers and mortars protected by the second amendment”? Alarmingly, some who should know better said yes. I asked for real, honest to God constitutional or legal arguments and I got philosophy, opinion, and a hodge-podge of Constitutional cites that did not come from the second.

I fail to see how plugging ones personal opinion into an issue that begged for a factual answer is good for the discussion. There simply is NO legal protection for such weapons under the second. No court has ever held such to be true mostly because no lawyer has ever been able to make even a weak case.