84-Year-Old Korean War Veteran / School Crossing Guard Fired, Guns Taken ... Your Blood Will Boil...

Cpl Mark McMiller -while I appreciate you requoting in caps, your analysis is simply incorrect. If you’re going to lecture on how the Constitution works, you should understand how the Constitution works. “...vested in the Constitution”. So we agree what it states. I’d refer you to McCulloch v Maryland (1819). Perhaps you could explain implied powers as they relate to the Constitution?

I’ve read Heller. Maybe you should. I’d ask, did the court rule that ‘well regulated’ only applied to organized militia? It’s important to note, though, that the Court specifically noted that the decision didn’t settle the issue of ‘gun control’. They wrote that as, “...this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field”.

What I find particularly curious about your response is that you use two completely opposite theories towards viewing the Constitution. On one hand, you refer back to ‘At the time the Bill of Rights was written...’. On the other hand, you refer to judicial review, where the Supreme Court interpreted the words of the Constitution.. ‘..right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that does not require service in the militia’. Seems like another form of cherry picking.

That stated, I genuinely await a response

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - Yes, I agree, that society lives by a number of unconstitutional laws because SCOTUS only has so much time to review so many cases. All it takes is a good grasp of English and a reading and understanding of the Constitution to see that those laws are unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that does not require service in the militia.

SGT (Join to see) - What I said about the Constitution was spot on. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "implied powers." When the Constitution specifically forbids the government from doing something, as the 2nd Amendment does, the government has no implied power to do it.

I've had Heller on my desktop for years and have read it numerous times. The only thing SCOTUS held was that DC's ban of guns in the home violated the Constitution. But you probably should read Scalia's dicta laying out the history of the right to keep and bear arms and why it is an individual right not requiring service in the militia. And while you're at it, read where Scalia says ownership of handguns and semi-automatic rifles (assault weapons) are protected by the Constitution because they are in common use by the people. Or just go ahead and stick your head up your ass and ignore it like all the others who don't like Heller. And, by the way, the 2nd Amendment is not the only Constitutional right that red flag laws violate.

Your assertion that I'm cherry picking is just idiotic. The 2nd Amendment has never required service in the militia. If there were an amendment that said, "A well educated government, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.", would you make the ridiculous argument that only the government has the right to keep and bear books?

Cpl Mark McMiller - I’m well aware of implied powers. That’s why I asked if you could explain what they mean in relation to the Constitution. I even gave you an excellent head start on what to reference. As you haven’t done so, I’d ask, is it because you can’t or won’t?

It appears we agree on Heller. I gave you a quote from the decision, and It only rules on a particular issue. While I asked what I thought was a rhetorical question, ‘..did the court rule that ‘well regulated’ only applied to organized militia?’, despite your multiple readings of the decision, apparently I need to answer that question. The answer is ‘No’. No such ruling was made. Again, in Heller, the court made it clear that the topic of ‘gun control’ hasn’t been examined in depth by the Court, and that the ruling didn’t settle the issue of ‘gun control’.
(*why do you assume that I don’t like it? Understanding the reality of how system works is a far cry from being anti-2nd Amendment. It’s when folks really don’t understand how it works is when Rights start getting chipped away).

As previously explained, you’ve relied on original intent in some places, but judicial review in others. You can’t really have it both ways. Thats cherry picking. Pointing that out isn’t idiotic. Furthermore, your example doesn’t really make sense. But as I’ll answer questions as posed, no I wouldn't make that ridiculous argument. (*i have never stated that a person has to be in the militia to bear arms. Please point out otherwise).

You previously wrote, “All it takes is a good grasp of English and a reading and understanding of the Constitution to see that those laws are unconstitutional..” Actually, the Constitution is a bit more nuanced than that. It’s actually quite ambiguous (often by design). At the Constitutional Convention, Madison stated, “In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce”.
They knew people and ideologies would change over time. And they were clever enough to create a document that would be strong enough to last for centuries, but flexible enough to last for generations.

Anyway, McCulloch v Maryland (1819). Another good one is Marbury v Madison (1803). Once you understand them, you might begin understand why it takes more than a good grasp of English and a read through of the Constitution to ‘know’ what is and isn’t Constitutional.

Best of luck