No, it helps ensure that only law abiding citizens legally have arms.
Age is not one of them. The unemancipated has no right to sovereignty of will at all. That rests with their parents, or guardians. The 2nd Amend doesn't apply to the unemancipated, those judged a danger to themselves, or others, or to that have had their rights infringed as a consequence of being convicted of certain crimes.
None of that is in the 2d Amendment. You are merely stating that certain restrictions are valid even if not stated in the Amendment.
They can not regulate ownership, other than as given above. They can regulate use, except to deny effective self defense.
In other words, according to you, even though restrictions are not mentioned in the 2d Amendment, certain restrictions are constitutional as long as those restrictions are in agreement with your philosophy. Do I have that summarized correctly?
The commerce in all nuclear devices is regulated, regardless, of whether, or not they are, or can be a part of arms and the regulation is based substantially on other concerns unrelated to armaments. The commerce in all arms is also regulated and in many cases there's infringement of the 2nd Amend. You'll notice though, that most folks don't bitch much about it, especially with the more expensive, devastating and crew served weapons.
Again, you seem to agree that regulation of certain weapons is okay, but others are not. That is the whole issue with the machine gun trial.
" No, it helps ensure that only law abiding citizens legally have arms."
You don't get to define legal terms and determine what legal concepts mean. Licensing applies to privilege, not right. The only thing it insures is that those in power are the only ones able to enjoy their right.
Re: Emancipation
"None of that is in the 2d Amendment. You are merely stating that certain restrictions are valid even if not stated in the Amendment."
You can't even grasp the concept of emancipation. I'm not surprised then, that you can't grasp anything else.
Re: They can not regulate ownership, other than as given above. They can regulate use, except to deny effective self defense.
"They can not regulate ownership, other than as given above. They can regulate use, except to deny effective self defense. In other words, according to you, even though restrictions are not mentioned in the 2d Amendment, certain restrictions are constitutional as long as those restrictions are in agreement with your philosophy. Do I have that summarized correctly?"
No. The 2nd Amend doesn't cover use whatsoever. I covers ownership and bearing. It does not forbid law governing murder, insurrection, armed robbery, firing in various places, ect... In other words, according to you, even though restrictions are not mentioned in the 2d Amendment, certain restrictions are constitutional as long as those restrictions are in agreement with your philosophy. Do I have that summarized correctly?
"Again, you seem to agree that regulation of certain weapons is okay, but others are not. That is the whole issue with the machine gun trial."
The Constitutional issues in this trial regard the commerce Clause and the 2nd Amend. The 2nd Amend. says no restrictions can be placed on the people's right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't apply to regulation of commerce, unless the people's right is violated by that applicaiton. In this case, the people's right has been clearly violated, since a machine gun isn't a weapon of mass destruction and poses no substantial risk in and of itself, as does nuke mat'ls and explosives.