Accept the following as the word of God: The Constitution does NOT grant unlimited power to government except for things specifically denied it in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution grants government very limited and specific powers, further restrained by the Bill of Rights.

In other words, the government needs permission to do it, not a restriction to be prevented from it.

That isnt my opinion, it is absolute fact. There is no gray area.

With that in mind, where exactly is the government granted the authority to tell anyone they may not own a weapon of any kind?
They same they pass now - legally or otherwise. Legally? They cant pass any NOW. Practically? They do it anyway.
Where did you get that idea?

This is what I mean by your complete lack of understanding of the basics of the English language. NOTHING in the Constitution says anything along those lines.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I have not implied, or stated, that anything in the US Constitution grants unlimited powers to the government, except where specifically enumerated to that public sector in our social contract.

In my opinion, there is no authority granted to the federal public sector, or the several states, to deny or disparage the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, if they are part of a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms. Consider the military. Do you consider that any state has the authority to deny or disparage the individual right of federal military personnel to keep and bear arms?

The Second Amendment, clearly states, that a well regulated militia is necessary; not merely a convenience, or nice to have, for the security of a free state.

It doesn't matter because all men are in the militia anyways. The militia is made up of all able bodied men who are able to take up arms if necessary.

Since we are all in the militia we have the right to bear arms. If you don't like it, the constitution needs to be changed

A bit of Devil's Advocacy . . . for the sake of the debate, let's accept as true that you are correct that the Second Amendment does not give a right to bear arms individually.

On what basis, then, is there a right to use contraception or have children, or engage in even a marriage between a man and a woman, engage in sexual activity between consenting non-married adults and sexual activity not being intercourse whether married or not (oral and anal sex), and alot of other rights not specifically expressed in the Constitution? The Second Amendment makes a specific reference to a right to bear arms, yet there is no mention for these other things at all.

I am not of the opinion that rights do not exist unless they are specifically mentioned. In fact, I think the 9th Amendment for me specifically states that the Bill of Rights is a highlight non-exclusive listing of rights, which means they recognised that others were held, and they didn't want the new government to try to assert that the list was exclusive and thus disparage other rights held by the People.

Without question, individual gun ownership is a cultural tradition from the first days of the colonies. In the rural areas, it has been an integral part of their heritage and activities. How then, with all the rights being declared to exist that have no mention in the constitution with less history and/or long period of illegality until declared constitutional rights, can the history of individual gun ownership not have the top rank of standing to qualify as one of those unmentioned rights?

If we take the kind of approach I just read, my concern is that there really isn't any right at all except those specifically mentioned in their most literal form construed in favour of the government rather than the People. "Rights" are only what a person feels they are at the ballot box and the politicians in office say they are and can be given or taken upon whim by those seeking to do so. Those aren't rights at all. I just cannot see that as being the purpose of the American Constitution. These were the loyalists' sentiments on governance during the Revolutionary War.

Please cite the sections of the Constitution granting the federal government such authority.
The state has that explicitl authority and may decide when a professional soldier may be armed and when he may not.

What the United States government specifically and explicitly has NOT been granted is the authority to dictate such to the people.
That is correct - it does. That clause in no way affects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That clause is given as an example of WHY the right is protected.

We've been over this exhaustively.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

it is astounding that this exercise has progressed (?) thru 4+ pages and no one has yet to mention the posse comitatus. If none are willing to bring this into the mix, you will never grasp why the 2nd Amendment was worded as it was.

The 13 Colonies were an unsteady and non-conforming lot.
Each state desired to deal with its' own problems- not having Federal troops invade and force the Federal version of order upon its' citizenry.
And the Federal Army was not strong enough to continually inposing its' will upon various factions in ant event.
The heavy-handed tactics from the King contributed to the posse comitatus system and a general hands-off approach.

And luckily for us, that system was in place at the onset of the War of Independence. These militias were the first lines of defense, until the Regulars could arrive.

After we were victorious, the founding Fathers knew what an asset militias, or the posse comitatus, would be to the future of the country.

You can all go back in time and try to put a spin on what was their " intent " in framing the Constitution, but the words and the events leading up to those words are rather straight-forward.

__________________
Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life

The 2nd amend is very simple. All one need do is read it. It states militias can be regulated for the defense of the nation. So regulate the militias all you want gun haters, I am not in a militia. It also states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Notice gun haters it states the right of the people, not the right of the militias.
What the 2nd amend does not say is a person must be in a militia to bear arms.
The gun haters like the regulated militia part because the gun haters think this means they can regulate a right. But no where will you find any requirement to be in a militia to bear arms in the 2nd amend. That would be a infringement. Simply because it puts a requirement on a right one must first conform to before one can exercise that right.
The only people that have a problem with the 2nd amend are the people that want to limit the right to bear arms.

It is my contention, that only people who are well regulated, (as in active participation in a militia) are protected by the second amendment. It can be implied that any of the several states have the authority to deny or disparage the right to keep and bear arms to those individuals who are not well regulated, as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms.

This is my understanding of the word, necessary:

Main Entry: 1nec·es·sary
Pronunciation: 'ne-s&-"ser-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English necessarie, from Latin necessarius, from necesse necessary, probably from ne- not + cedere to withdraw -- more at NO
1 a : of an inevitable nature : INESCAPABLE b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things d : COMPULSORY
2 : absolutely needed : REQUIRED

Source: Definition of necessary - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I am under the impression, that Posse Comitatus, only applies to forces in federal service. It would not apply to state militias, when ensuring the domestic tranquility or disaster recovery.

I am not a gun hater, it is simply my contention, that only people who are well regulated, (as in active participation in a militia) are protected by the second amendment. It can be implied that any of the several states have the authority to deny or disparage the right to keep and bear arms to those individuals who are not well regulated, as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms.

Ah gun hater there are only twenty seven words in the 2nd amend. Not one of them tells a person they must be in a militia to bear arms.
The 2nd amend does say militias can be regulated. I however am not in a militia. I however am the people. You know that there group the 2nd amend says something about not infringing the right of.
The 2nd amend states the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

It is not that I love guns less, but that I love our Republic more.

The Second Amendment, clearly states, that a well regulated militia is necessary; not merely a convenience, or nice to have, for the security of a free state. If a well regulated militia were not necessary for security of a free state, would the Founders have included, the keeping and bearing arms, as an individual right? Since, the Second amendment does not simply say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", I tend to view the fact that they included the, 'well regulated militia' part, for a specific reason.

This is my understanding of the word, necessary:

Main Entry: 1nec·es·sary
Pronunciation: 'ne-s&-"ser-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English necessarie, from Latin necessarius, from necesse necessary, probably from ne- not + cedere to withdraw -- more at NO
1 a : of an inevitable nature : INESCAPABLE b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things d : COMPULSORY
2 : absolutely needed : REQUIRED

Source: Definition of necessary - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

If you are not in a militia, then the Second Amendment may not be a recourse for your private, individual, keeping and bearing of arms.

Granted that such is your interpretation of the second amendment. Do you believe that this is how policy should work? Do you believe that individuals should not be allowed to own firearms unless they are participants in some kind of government-sanctioned militia?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

While I generally support any policy that empowers local governing bodies over federal ones, I have to take exception with this because it seems to be directly going against the constitution. It seems to me that differentiating pistols in this fashion is an end-run around the right to bear arms, and I feel that this sort of legislation is a bad precedent.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson