If I understand you, you are stating that the federal government cannot pass laws regulating guns but that the states can?

So as an honest question (I'm not bashing or necessarily disagreeing) would you consider all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights to be applying only to the federal government but leaving the states open?

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

The part of the 2nd that mentions militias, is not a condition on the right to KBA. It is merely an explanation.

The 2nd amendment in modern language would read:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted.

This has exactly the same meaning as the one written in the 1700s.

If the Good Witch of the North were to wave her magic wand and suddenly an armed populace were NOT necessary for security and freedom, the 2nd amendment would still mean that the RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted.

People who insist that the right is only for militias, know this, of course. At least the ones who didn't flunk English 101 do. But they are bound and determined to remove or at least control all the guns in law-abiding citizens' hands, so they keep pushing their lie and pretending they think it says something else.

__________________
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we're using now.

BZZZT! Wrong answer (although that IS in there in a way)

If you are of the belief that the government has the authority to control the lawful private ownership of weapons, then the onus is upon YOU to cite the section of the US Constitution which grants that authority to government.

You see - as has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you - government powers are specifically itemized and that which is not granted is forbidden.

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

Ahem...the Bill of Rights does apply to the states as well.

As I am certain you are aware Eagle, regardless of Article VI, and ignoring the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendments construction (and a decent understanding of history) makes this quite clear.

Has anyone ever wondered exactly WHY the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." and yet the rest dont have that restriction?

Simple - in the late 18th century, the states most certainly could (and in fact, some did) have state religions and/or religious tests/requirements for holding office. Had the 1st Amendment not been restricted to Congress in such a fashion, those states would likely have not ratified the Bill of Rights and would very likely not remained in the union.

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

Only Gun lovers would use that sophistry. How many militias, are you aware of, that are not composed of people.

From my understanding, it was left to the several states to determine how they want to administer their regulations (prescribed by congress) concerning the militia.

From this perspective, the states are free to regulate a militia of people who keep and bear arms. That is not the same thing as gun control. I am of the opinion, that the several states have no authority to regulate the private ownership of arms, outside of S8 and the Second Amendment; if that individual is actively participating in the militia.

Section 8, in the constitution delegates to the states, the ability to regulate (non-federal) people who keep and bear arms. If someone chooses to keep and bear arms, they are liable to regulation, as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms.

I am of the opinion, that the word, "militia" has a specific meaning in the 2A. Would you agree that had the Founding Fathers written that a "mob" of the people were necessary for the security of a free state, we would not have any current misunderstandings regarding this amendment.

What you suggest about gun control is already happening, regardless of what some people think of a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms.

Really? I'd love to see the EXACT citation.

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

Ah gun hater all you have to do is produce one law, edit, or regulation that states a person must be in a militia to exercise the right to bear arms.

WTF is a militia? Is it an army? Or an organized armed citizenry?

Your "rebuttal" doesn't even address my argument, namely, that the right vests in THE PEOPLE.

Does the 2d Am not specifically state it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE which shouldn't be infringed?

Sure, THE PEOPLE use their arms as part of the militia, but does that mean that when the fighting is over, they give them back? Come on.

I've witnesses high powered lawyers who've spent years researching this issue argue your point, and it sounds just as much a stretch when they try.

If you don't like it the way it is, why not try to amend around it? That's how you SHOULD change the constitution. Not by trying to destroy the plain meaning by making some obtuse interpretation.

BINGO!

The second amendment is quite clear, and even clearer is the original intent of the framers in outlining this right in the constitution.

There is no arguing around the fact that we have the right to bear arms.

If you don't agree, then you need to promote the changing of the constitution. No matter how hard one tries to interpret the 2A to allow gun control, history, the rest of the constitution, and the grammar of the English language (both modern and 18th century) are there arguing against it.

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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

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;

A militia, is not an anarchy, or mob of individual people who keep and bear arms. If the 2A were an individual right, without an obligation, the 2A would simply read "The right of an anarchy or mob of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

No where does it state a person must be in a militia to bear arms. That would be an infringement on the right to bear arms.
It does however say militias should be regulated.
Regulate the militias all you want gun hater, I am not in a militia.