But you did. In fact, you claimed initially that they mean for the 2nd Amendment to be used only for militia purposes. This is not true.
No I did not. Read my post. I said the allowance of militias, particularly during the times they lived in, fresh off of leading a revolution against a tyrannical government and the threat of Indians whose land they were taking, as well as the desired appeasement of anti-federalist with militia leanings was the primary impetus behind the conception 2nd amendment. I did not say it was only for that. I know the framers intended the 2nd amendment to cover personal self-defense. This is common knowledge.
I read it. Your post brings up opinions, some while valid, exist solely outside the bounds of the law and process of the law. I'm glad you skimmed over the Wiki, but if you dig deeper you'll see exactly what the framers meant.
We are arguing what the 2nd amendment says and what the framers intended. You have not provided any more legal evidence than me. Your SCOTUS rulings are irrelevant. They do not apply to what we're talking about, restrictions on certain types of weapons.
SCOTUS is the highest court in the land. They interpret the constitution. Do I agree with everything they decide? Obviously not. But in THIS case, they were merely affirming the "individual rights" interpretation of the 2nd that had been used since the founding of the Republic and is consistent with the writings of the framers. Trying to argue against this point amounts to pure lying. The SCOTUS finally decided to affirm what everybody else had interpreted the 2nd to be.
Okay, so why cite them? Why don't you go ahead and cite Plessy vs. Ferguson to support separate but equal then? The SCOTUS could be wrong. And once again, none of the rulings you cited have anything to do with banning assault weapons or extended clips, which is what the gun control debate is about.
As for Citizens United, the court went against and hundred plus years of precedent in various court systems. The overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling. While I find it outrageous, it is still law and I don't agree with states, cities or congress trying override it's constitutionaly without going through the actual process of Amending the Constitution.
So the SCOTUS can be wrong. Let's stick to talking about what's in the 2nd amendment what the intent of it was.
Here is something I NEVER hear from gun-control folks: "Let's amend the constitution in regards to the 2nd Amendment." Why is that? Isn't that the legal thing to do?
It's because you yourself have begun to pat yourself on the back for an argument that was brought up and defeated 200 years ago. Madison didn't see the need for a 2nd amendment because he erroneously assumed that the government would never have enough weapons or powers to overcome the force of citizens and militia, but he was persuaded otherwise when visionaries argued that the government might have more monies, resources and legal avenues to become better equip ed and armed. Thus they argued for the passage of an amendment that would allow citizens and militias to match the power of government weapons essentially.
You seem to be making a strawman argument here. Where in this thread did I say I want ban guns? I don't. I am a gun owner. Restrictions on types of weapons legal was not defeated in 200 years ago.
If you didn't know already, you CAN own grenade launchers and heavy weapon systems in the United States. The government makes the permits so expensive and rounds so rare to get that most people don't have the means to get it.
Yes, you can own a rocket launcher, but it can't be loaded. So if the cops find me with a rocket launcher and it has a projectile in it, I'm going to jail. Do you support this? If so, you're "cripwalking on the Constitution."
You keep citing shyt that has nothing to do with the crux of my argument.
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment whether written or by intent that says that there can be no restrictions or regulations on any type of conceivable weapon.
I'm going to ask you again for the 3rd time? Where do you draw the line? If I was a billionaire with a secret underground batcave could I own a nuclear missile? Should fully automatic machine guns be legal? What about my hypothetical mobile device that can signal a small drone that fires projectiles? Can I own a tank?
If you think it's within constitutional means to ban any of those things for private citizens, you are drawing the line somewhere and "cripwalking on the Constitution" according to you. I just draw it before you.
Again, you name-call, trivialize issues I had because of war, and fail to cite ANY law or historical evidence to make your point.
What are you talking about? I didn't call a single name in the thread except for a gun nut, but come on. You know you are. I'm not trying to insult or demean you, but regular posters like you and I have posted here long enough so that we know certain things about each other's personalities. You are VERY paranoid and you have a fetish for guns and it's noticeable. You're still in the military man mindset. It's okay. The country is probably better off with dudes like you.
My only issue is this inclination you have is OBVIOUSLY what's driving your argument, not cold, legal logic.
You claim that I'm only arguing for this amendment because I'm pro-gun, and it is completely disingenuous.
No it's not at all. Once again, for the 3rd time, I'll cite the fact that many social welfare programs you support like Medicare, Social Security, single payer healthcare, etc. "crip walk on the Constitution" far more than banning extended clips and AR-15s does, but I'm sure you'll convenient ignore that again for the 3rd time.
You are being disingenuous because you are picking and choosing what you want to strictly interpret the Constitution about.
You and others here know I'm pretty heavy on the Constitutional rule of law, regardless of the Amendment. This is stooping down to Mowgli levels of twisting around facts.
lol...yeah, I'm stooping to Mowgli level by using logic, facts, and law.
Which goes back to my original opinion about trying to discern what the founders intent was through the lens of the SCOTUS 200 something years later. Type would just as easily throw any recent SCOTUS reading he disagreed with in the bushes and call it right wing ideological nonsense, like Citizens United. He's being disingenuous.