[tpaine]

StJacques defends unconstitutional infringements:

Let me quote from an article at Guncite.com, which is a "pro-gun" (if I may use that term) site, very jealous of assaults on the 2nd Amendment:

". . . Likewise, the amendment does not protect the possession of fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, flame throwers, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and so on. Although such sophisticated devices of modern warfare do have military utility, they are not also useful for law enforcement or for self-protection, nor are they commonly possessed by law-abiding individuals. . . ."

Guncite.com is not commenting upon the way the law could or should be interpreted (they very much uphold gun owner's rights),

Bull.. -- They are 'commenting' that objects [arms] of military utility that can [as per the 2nd] commonly be possessed by law-abiding individuals can be prohibited by an act of Congress; supposedly because they are "not useful for law enforcement or for self-protection" [obviously false], -- "nor are they commonly possessed by law-abiding individuals" [a stupid 'begging' of the issue]. . .

they are merely stating the way the law is interpreted,

Again, "the way the law is interpreted" is the disputed issue.
The supposed 'law' is an unconstitutional deprivation of property [arms] without due process of law. [14th] -- Congress has no delegated power to prohibit arms. [10th]

and the fact that the ATF maintains its National Firearms Act Branch (see above) is the proof of this.

"Proof" of what? -- that the 2nd is being ignored?

Therefore the only limitations upon which arms a private individual can own are those defined under the National Firearms Act --- the law as I understand it recognizes no limits whatsoever to the right of an individual to possess firearms.

Yet you contend that fully automatic firearms, artillery pieces, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, flame throwers, etc -- can be outright prohibited.
-- Are you aware that many people owned these objects perfectly legally prior to 1934 and still do? Are you aware that while reasonable regulations can be written to control use, there is no constitutional justification for total prohibitions on possession?

Hell, even nuclear, chemical & biological materials are possessed by individuals & companies.

And let me say to you as well Warthog, that I am NOT pro-gun control. I am merely commenting upon the law the way that it is.
And I will add that I am very comfortable that my neighbor cannot go out and purchase a 105 mm cannon and set it up in his front yard.

Why does this 'comfort' you?
Your re-enactor neighbor could [in many rural areas] set up a functional &'legal' muzzle loading cannon or mortar capable of doing massive damage far beyond his own property, and few rational people would blink an eye.

As Warthog said:
"--- whether the modern legislature has managed to pass unConstitutional abominations in a Court system that ignores the plain language and intent of the Constitution --" is not the question.
Why are you more 'comfortable' disarming your neighbor, [and why do you think you have the power to do so] -- that is the question.

[StJacques]

tpaine, to state it as simply as I can for you; the reality that the National Firearms Act is enforced makes it a fact that this is the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that holds up in the courts. If it's not, then the law would not be enforced. And Guncite.com was also commenting upon the fact of how this law is enforced today. Niether Guncite.com nor I were defending "unconstitutional infringements" and I resent that you have misstated my views on this.

I have stated in several posts, most recently my #238 above, that there is a logical constitutional argument to be made that the National Firearms Act violates the 2nd Amendment's prohibition against the regulation of individual gun ownership and I have given two pieces of evidence to support this; the ruling in English v Texas (see my #s 236 & 238 above), which set an important precedent that was evidently ignored in the passage of the National Firearms Act, and the distinct meaning of the use of the word "regulated" by the framers of the constitution (see my #233 above) which only referred to the right of Congress to "discipline" or "direct" the militia as a "collective unit," not to the right of Congress to regulate individual gun ownership, which I also make clear is a power denied them by the 2nd Amendment in my post #233.

And I remain comfortable knowing that my neighbor cannot possess a 105 mm cannon in his front yard. That follows from the ad absurdum and ad horribilis application of jurisprudential reasoning, not from some ignorance of the 2nd Amendment's real meaning.