Ironic that you are asking me to stop the crap unless I have facts, yet your arguments are grasping, reaching, at best. In the order of the first set of "facts," it is your interpretation based on how the states wished to limit federal power, that the federal government has no power or perhaps that the federal government should be limited insofar as how the right to bear arms should be regulated. Yes, there is a restriction on federal power to give the states a greater share of the power of the
Government and yes, there is a caveat within that restriction. So it might be your opinion that the restriction is limitless, but it's not, just like the government's regulation is not limitless. You appear to be exhibiting some form of arms-bearing zeal which, while admirable, might be cause for your disgrace if it is over done.
The article by William Rawle is useful information that I didn't previously have, but it's only useful for historical purposes. A document from 1829 might be seen as jurisprudence, if it were a court case or perhaps the comment of a judge on a particular case, but
this is a compilation of the opinions held by a 19th century attorney of the
entire US Constitution. Was he a constitutional scholar? Perhaps. Does his opinion give us an idea of the depth and breadth of the understanding of the Constitution by a legal scholar of that time? Yes. This is an important primary source, but it does not govern how we legislate gun control today.
Ironically, even if one does agree with Mr. Rawle, that does not mean that one should conclude that the militia is self regulated, nor does it stand as evidence to prove that the government, whether it be state or federal, may or may not regulate citizens' lawful right to bear arms.
The fact is, today we have a wider variety of arms available to citizens, which are more readily available and more widely circulated by a more heavily entrenched population of gun owners. The Second Amendment did not give you the right to own an anti-tank rifle for the militia in 1789, and it is questionable whether or not it did in the 40's when the Swedish began producing them. I like to think that it does not now. Gun ownership is largely a function of how much at war society is, and the culture of war, and how closely a country is in contact with other countries who are at war, such as the allies in WW2. In the late 18th century, the US was emerging from a war, and the only people who could abstain from owning a gun were the people who did so for religious reasons. So why is it that we should conclude that anyone can own any gun now, based on that information from two centuries ago? It's a stretch.
The for side mentioned in post
#30 that, as gun culture became more prevalent and our nation's leaders became more aware of the situation, they began to call for gun control measures as early as the late 19th century.
The against side argued in post
#14, "having requirements in order to buy a gun is not [...] gun control." But this is in fact part of the larger issue. You can attempt to call it "disarming the populace" all you want, that's not what this is about. This is not about taking away guns from people who presently own guns, and no part of the "people have historically owned guns" proves that people should own guns, or that they may now own guns.
As Serenity said in her warning in post #26, this is the place to discuss the debate between jet and ludin, NOT to present your own evidence in regards to the issue that the two of them discussed. There have already been consequences given out. Anyone want more, feel free to identify yourselves.
