What are you rambling about? Didn't use what words?
I am just as free to make an interpretation as you are. Because I also have Freedom of Speech, I have just as much right to express my interpretation as you do.
What makes you more of an expert on what the framers meant than anyone else? Have you proven that your own desires do not influence your opinion on the subject?
I, personally, believe that you have amply shown your "desires"/bias to have a particular interpretation accepted has been more than proven by your own posts. You have done more to discredit your interpretation and lend an extreme bias to it, than anything the rest of us could ever possibly do.
that is not relevant to the gun control debate and the "congress can do anything it wants" nonsense is what has screwed this country up. It completely ignores the tenth amendment and the very premise on which the constitution was based.
tell us what sentence or sub clause you claims allows regulation of small arms.
I ner said that Congress can do anything it wants. You are lying about that.
Expert sources on the meaning of the terms are NOT my opinion.
What BIAS would that be? What are my DESIRES?
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
and we have been down this path before.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
and we have been down this path before.
What in that section describes imposing definitions of/or limitations to small arms permitted to be kept and born by the people?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
well then maybe you will tell us what part of A1Sec8 justifies all the infringements you support then
All you have done is share your opinion as to which meaning you think was intended.
From you posts, I get that you are biased towards and have a desire for restricting/banning certain weapons and ammunition magazines.
And you will fail again, as before.
What in that section describes imposing definitions of/or limitations to small arms permitted to be kept and born by the people?
Actually, my opinion is supported by every single jurist who ever voted to accept and approve measures which by your own judgment are incremental encroachments constituting a much broader meaning of the word INFRINGED. As such, that list would include a legion of not only federal judges and supreme court justices but a good many constitutional experts as well.
Quite a bit of it actually.
It is always important to begin at the beginning with the Preamble. While in a strict sense, the Preamble does not confer specific powers, it does tell us what everything in it was written and what the goals of the Constitution are. Everything which follows must always be interpreted with the guiding principles contained in the Preamble in mind if there is any question at all about them.
Very clearly the Preamble tells us that among the purposes of the Constitution are
*** to form a more perfect union
*** insure domestic tranquility
*** provide for the common defense
*** promote the general welfare
There is no question that items 2 and 4 would allow apply to crime and how it effects Americans. So we need to keep that in the forefront of your thought on what follows.
Article I, Section 8 - 1 allows Congress to
*** lay and collect taxes
*** provide for the general welfare
Both of those could be employed on the issue of guns.
Article I, section 8 -3
*** empowers Congress the power to regulate imports so that could effect guns and ammunition from foreign nations
*** empowers Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and that would effect guns also
paragraph 16
*** allows for Congress to regulate the militia
paragraph 18
*** empowers Congress to make al laws which are necessary and proper to carry out the earlier powers
All that can be used in the laws applied to firearms providing they do NOT result in the DEFEAT or DESTRUCTION of the right to keep an bear arms.
We have gone around and around over this hair splitting attitude of yours. How many straws may be added to the poor camel's back before that final straw is finally seen as an "infringement"?
Actually, my opinion is supported by every single jurist who ever voted to accept and approve measures which by your own judgment are incremental encroachments constituting a much broader meaning of the word INFRINGED. As such, that list would include a legion of not only federal judges and supreme court justices but a good many constitutional experts as well.
that is just absolutely pathetic if one considers the premise that the founders were creating a limited federal government. regulating the militia does not create a power to regulate small arms owned by the citizenry.
the interstate commerce nonsense is just that-it was a fiction created by FDR that took him and his AG months to come up with
and you have previously stated that if you OWN ONE GUN your "enjoyment of the right" exists
that is ridiculous
paragraph 16
*** allows for Congress to regulate the militia
Your problem is not with me. Your problem lies with the language of the US Constitution. Unfortunately for you, it says what it says regardless if you support it or not, if you approve or not, if you like it or not, or if it does what you want or not.
no I know what the Constitution says. I know the foundation it was based upon and the concept of a limited government.
Nothing you just wrote negates the statement of mine which preceded your outburst against me. Again, here is what I said
Perhaps you could prove that incorrect instead of attacking me? That would be most appreciated.
Then what would be the point of even having a militia since, in my opinion, militias are intended to protect us from congress and the likes.
Just sayin'.....
Each court case is different, so each judge's decision is different, yet limitted to the issue(s) of that law/situation. You will note that Heller "stepped on" or overrode many prior SCOTUS decisions in finding both an individual right, separate and unrealted to militia service, and said state/federal jusrisdiction did not matter. Although the decision did not preclude which "infringemnts" may stand, it struck down some very big ones; locks, safes and "keeping in a disabled state", not distinguishing between handguh, shotgun and pistol and not allowing special LEO "exception" provisions.
And what you just wrote proves that I am correct. There indeed can be what some consider as incremental encroachments that insist constitute the right has been INFRINGED but that has not been the agreement of many many courts and justices over our long history. Thus, the idea that some have pushed here that the meaning of INFRINGED is something as small as HINDER is ridiculous and not supported by reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?