We banned guns & knives...

[BehindBlueI's]

No reasonable person could ever come to the conclusion that the Framers would stand for either the Federal government, or, the states to trample on a right, that once again, they stated, shall not be infringed. There`s zero ambiguity here, except to someone with an agenda contrary to that statement by the Founders, making crystal clear their intent. You have not, because you can not, present a compelling argument for how infringements fall in line with a right that the men who acknowledged that right stated shall not be infringed.

Read the minutes yourself, not just quotes that support your preconceived notions. Or the anti federalist papers. Both would support the notion that the GCA was unconstitutional...and that Heller is as well. If you want original intent.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Help me square that circle. Original intent, per your Samuel Adams quote, limits Congress (which is the Federal Congress) with the 2nd amendment. It does not limit the states. The Illinois constitution does not mimic the wording of the 2nd amendment, and says something like "subject to police power" in their version.

Ok, the States already protected the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, thus the concern was over Congress and its power to provide for a select or "Prussian" militia.

Illinois state level RKBA language was amended as ordered by Mayor Daley so he could control the African-Americans in Chicago.

 

[GIJEW]

Regarding the question of federal vs state vs individual power, Article 1; section 10 of the Constitution says that "No state shall, without consent of Congress...keep troops or ships of war in time of peace...unless actually invaded, or be in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay".

The point being that the militia spoken of in the 2A is the people, not the state army and that an armed public is a fire-wall against tyranny by federal OR state authorities. The burden of proof is on government, at any level, to show that it's "reasonable restrictions" are actually reasonable. Meaning IMO, that they:
1)address an actual problem
2)can actually solve the problem
3)are not so broad that they become collective punishment

For example:
the 2A doesn't apply inside jails, and that felons who've abused their rights, forfeit some them too.
You have to register to vote and bring photo ID

 

[gregr]

Read the minutes yourself, not just quotes that support your preconceived notions. Or the anti federalist papers. Both would support the notion that the GCA was unconstitutional...and that Heller is as well. If you want original intent.

Seriously, I`m still waiting for some answer to what shall not be infringed means, and how gun control fits within that.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Seriously, I`m still waiting for some answer to what shall not be infringed means, and how gun control fits within that.

Well, we're just going in circles then. If you believe a right is absolute, despite acknowledging exceptions do exist, I don't see much use in continuing the conversation.

 

[Denny347]

Well, we're just going in circles then. If you believe a right is absolute, despite acknowledging exceptions do exist, I don't see much use in continuing the conversation.