Devil5052 wrote: I think my arguments were absolutely accurate & I really dont understand your obvious anger, as the thrust of my post was to point out the inherant problems dividing the sides in the gun ownership debate when neither side is totaly right or wrong.
Your arguments are not even well thought out. To wit:
1) The second amendment is not known as Article II
2) Here is Article I section 8
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
3)Article I Section 10
(in its entirety):
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
4) Amendment II
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
5)The Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
In other words,
1) The federal government has OTHER constitutional authority to provide and maintain an Army and Navy.
2) the US states cannot keep militias without the consent of congress but are authorized to do it today.
3) the People, not the just the states, retain the right to keep and bear arms. There was simply no other reason to put that amendment in the Constitution since Article I covers the bases of keeping an army and a militia (see 1) &2)).
4) And, since the constitution doesn't
spcifically exclude the keeping and bearing of arms by the people, the tenth amendment guarantees that they can.
I only get angry at capricious arguments foisted upon the People to seize their clearly enumerated rights. Your ignorance is apalling. You need to read the Constitution with annotations.
There should be no argument concerning gun ownership that needs to be settled. Only the left thinks there is a problem with it and they are summarily wrong.