where does the federal government get the authority to regulate private commerce within a state?"

Easy, they just need enough people who are scared poopless of a inanimate object and happen to be control freaks . They will easily forget the constitution and abandon all reason as long as it satiates the delusion that it makes them safer. They will vote the people in who are dumb enough to believe it or cunning enough to use the lemmings to gain power and grant themselves whatever authority they wish. But we will all be magically safer and the government would never misuse authority right?

#4

That would not be a bad idea, but i am sure there would be a lot of complaints that it brands felons. A little check next to the organ donor, although i hear that requiring ID is putting the poor at a disadvantage and stripping them of their rights. But who knows i am sure the control freaks would not mind that as long as they get their paranoid way.

"considering how many guns wind up in the hands of convicted felons"

There are something like 350 million guns in this country, there are less the 6 million convicted felons. So if every felon owned a gun then that would be about 1.7 percent of the guns in this country. 1.7 percent if every one of them owned a gun, and you think background checks would solve that? OF those 1.2 percent come from bad dealers and over 50% come from straw purchases, we are down to under 1 percent of guns that would be subject to background checks that don't come from bad dealers or straw purchases. Take out the black market and what do you have? a fraction of 1 percent of the guns, does that sound like something that is worth the cost and hassle? Especially when you go for a more realistic number of felons that own guns, then you have a statistically non-existent number.

"Kinda like how the NRA forgets the part of the second amendment that says "in order to maintain a WELL REGULATED militia..."?"

No closer to the people who forget how the English language works. Or the people who refuse to read what the writers wrote about the use of guns.

"THAT'll make things faster at the DMV"

I don't think that would be much of an issue. The DOJ just puts out a list of people who can't have them in the same way that local governments supply that info if someone is not allowed to drive.

"Simple to anonymously buy, ship to FFL person."

Its not anonymous, ffl dealers are required to keep records for 20 years.

It means we are allowed to form a civilian militia and they should have access to guns. It says nothing about non-militia members having access to combat weapons."

Funny how that would negate the actual way the English language works as well as countless court rulings.

"if that were true, there would be no criminals carrying guns"

1.7 percent if EVERY convicted felon had a gun. The point is that the idea that background checks would solve anything is asinine when the issue is a fraction of a percent.

"The second ammendment is about the access to guns for a WELL REGULATED civilian militia"

No, you are wrong. The courts say you are wrong, the language says you are wrong. Repeating the fallacy does not make it any less delusional.

#28

Look into the linguistics of the matter.

Or drop the politics of the matter and look at it without bias.

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

What does that mean?
No one would question that as the right for people to read books, it is not legitimate to throw reason out just because you do not like guns.

No, it does not. It's simple linguistics. I am probably not the best one to explain it if you do not have a certain level of understanding already but there is this awesome thing called Google which would be more then happy to point you to all the information you need. Or if you would rather you can look at the context provided by the statements of the founding fathers which, without doubt, demolish any idea that guns were to be restricted to the militia. Your choice.

"I'm the one looking at the context, you're the one saying that part isn't important."

No, you are removing the context of the language it was written in to warp it to your definition. The context of language points out that the prefatory clause does not dictate the value of the operative clause. But the point was that the people who were responsible for it were completely in favor of personal gun ownership and to claim, erroneously, that the 2nd does not reflect this flies in the face of their stated direction and statements.

Lets try another example.

A waitress asks "what would you like"?
You respond " steak sounds good, i'll have the t-bone"

Did you order a t-bone or did you only order it if it sounds good?

"Like that explained in an introductory paragraph from the SC quoted at #32?"

Yes.

"But................ will he take advantage of it?"

The information has always been there. But fear is a great motivator and forces the mind and eyes shut. He is free to think whatever he wants but it becomes our duty to make sure that there is no action taken that is based on fear rather then reality or reason.

"The founders The NRA says it's everyone. Grandma's in the militia. Your 8 year old is in the militia. Child rapists are in the militia."

You have a very active imagination.

" when gun nuts are the most fearful people in the country."

Again with the imagination, your mother must be so proud. Let me know when you are done with the windmills and actually want to try to incorporate some reason onto your opinion.

#56

He was not a poor farmer.