Is more stringent gun control inevitable?[W:1622]

[haymarket]

I have said all along that the FDR administration and its judges made the expansion of the commerce clause part of the jurisprudential fabric

your attempt to pretend that the FDR decisions expressed the original intent of the founders is not credible, has no basis in fact and requires you to say that the words of the founders and of the court up to the early 1930s were in error.

And you talk about changing goal posts? we were arguing what the founders intended and after you LOST that argument based on the specious militia act fiction, you now jump 140 years ahead and claim that a lapdog court that overruled 140 years of precedent was acting upon original intent

How many times do I have to say that YES< the CONGRESS has that power NOW based on the FDR administration

but you want to claim it was based on original intent which is without any credibility

The language of the commerce clause. And that was given to us by the Founders.

They also gave us the militia clauses which we already know you badly and seriously were WRONG about .

 

[TurtleDude]

But when the Court invents something which is new and different like in Heller - you are all warm and supportive of that. Or when they throw out nearly a century of precedent like they did in CitizensUnited - that floats your boat to no end.

Sp please spare the feigned indignation about precedent over the years and your supposed respect for it.

Heller didn't event anything and was consistent with the miller decision and the intent of the founders and the WORDS of the constitution.

where it erred was pretending that the second amendment right-at a federal level-had limits

 

[TurtleDude]

The language of the commerce clause. And that was given to us by the Founders.

They also gave us the militia clauses which we already know you badly and seriously were WRONG about .

Still waiting for you to tell us that the militia clause had any reference to a federal power to LIMIT what arms private citizens can own

and tell us how is owning a firearm COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES?

when one wants to avoid the clear language of the second amendment, one has to offer all sorts of interesting contortions of the English language it appears

 

[TurtleDude]

Turtle I think you are blaming the wrong court.

Wickard built upon a previous decision.

The case being: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937)

that was AN FDR era court so try again. Wickard was the obvious pimple on top a reservoir of FDR pus

 

[haymarket]

Heller didn't event anything and was consistent with the miller decision and the intent of the founders and the WORDS of the constitution.

where it erred was pretending that the second amendment right-at a federal level-had limits

Where did a previous Court or law passed by Congress say that owning a firearm was a purely individual right independent and not at all related to the militia language in the first half of that sentence?

 

[jaeger19]

Sadly, what we have seen is every argument they have refuted but in the ends they still believe what they believe because they want to believe it. And that goes nowhere in debate which explains why they keep repeating the same stuff over and over and over.

Perhaps my favorite is this stuff about pistols and no names and when you ask what the heck that is about all we get is deafening silence.

Yeah.. the only deafening silence is from you.

I understand the pistols and no names... I can't understand why you cannot? If what you say is true.. that the founders INTENT was to have a registration of citizens private arms.. then there should be a list of names, and then a list of pistols and identifying marks.. (they would be proof marks.. ).

You have been asked to provide such a list as proof of your claims on the founders intent. So far.. you have produced nothing.

 

[haymarket]

that was AN FDR era court so try again. Wickard was the obvious pimple on top a reservoir of FDR pus

The reality I live in says FDR was President and the Court ruled in favor of the commerce clause restricting firearms.

I guess I was wrong in assuming all of us did.

And my calendar on the wall says its 2015. FDR has not been around for some 70 years now and the Court has changed membership several times over again since that era. But still no ruling otherwise.

Seems not only was the history of the 1930's a dreadful pain to you but the years in between then and now have not treated your beliefs very well aslo regarding the commerce clause.

 

[haymarket]

I understand the pistols and no names... I can't understand why you cannot?

Excellent, present the evidence and lets hear it?

 

[TurtleDude]

The reality I live in says FDR was President and the Court ruled in favor of the commerce clause restricting firearms.

I guess I was wrong in assuming all of us did.

And my calendar on the wall says its 2015. FDR has not been around for some 70 years now and the Court has changed membership several times over again since that era. But still no ruling otherwise.

Seems not only was the history of the 1930's a dreadful pain to you but the years in between then and now have not treated your beliefs very well aslo regarding the commerce clause.

the reality was that there was no commerce clause basis for control over individuals' firearms until FDR and his Court created it

so why are we spending so much time dealing with the nonsense that the Founders actually intended such a power exist when they were long dead before such a power was conjured up?

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah.. the only deafening silence is from you.

I understand the pistols and no names... I can't understand why you cannot? If what you say is true.. that the founders INTENT was to have a registration of citizens private arms.. then there should be a list of names, and then a list of pistols and identifying marks.. (they would be proof marks.. ).

You have been asked to provide such a list as proof of your claims on the founders intent. So far.. you have produced nothing.

Its a non issue-He has abandoned that claim and now admits what I and you and others have known all along


The "power" of the federal government to regulate privately owned small arms did not exist until FDR came along

 

[haymarket]

the reality was that there was no commerce clause basis for control over individuals' firearms until FDR and his Court created it

so why are we spending so much time dealing with the nonsense that the Founders actually intended such a power exist when they were long dead before such a power was conjured up?

The Supreme Courts opinion has the force of law and becomes the reality for all of us. Your personal opinion.... well .... its just your personal opinion and means nothing in the scheme of things regarding that reality we all live in.

At least most of us.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Supreme Courts opinion has the force of law and becomes the reality for all of us. Your personal opinion.... well .... its just your personal opinion and means nothing in the scheme of things regarding that reality we all live in.

At least most of us.

why do you continually pretend what the supreme court did in the 1930s is the best evidence of what the founders intended when that same supreme court ignored 140 years of prior court decisions?

 

[haymarket]

Its a non issue-He has abandoned that claim and now admits what I and you and others have known all along


The "power" of the federal government to regulate privately owned small arms did not exist until FDR came along

I hope you don't mine if I have the utter temerity to speak for myself Turtle - even in the carefully controlled gun threads? No argument has been abandoned by meespecially one which proved you were wrong about the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT and the militia clauses in the US Constitution.

Quite the opposite in fact - I still want to hear all bout these pistols and names or no names and just what some hear believe it means .... at least as far as their own beliefs go.

It seems you do NOT want to go there since I challenged you to explain it to me before and you were unable to do so. Apparently you cannot do so now either.

 

[haymarket]

why do you continually pretend what the supreme court did in the 1930s is the best evidence of what the founders intended when that same supreme court ignored 140 years of prior court decisions?

But you were ecstatic when Heller ignored two centuries of history. Where was your feigned indignation then.... and now for that matter with that pissing upon history?

 

[haymarket]

the reality was that there was no commerce clause basis for control over individuals' firearms until FDR and his Court created it

so why are we spending so much time dealing with the nonsense that the Founders actually intended such a power exist when they were long dead before such a power was conjured up?

The Supreme Court and FDR did not create the commerce clause. It was placed there by the Founders in 1787.

 

[TurtleDude]

But you were ecstatic when Heller ignored two centuries of history. Where was your feigned indignation then.... and now for that matter with that pissing upon history?

Two centuries of history? that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Indeed, Heller noted how lower courts ignored the Cruikshank decision and indeed commentators noted that (most likely senile) Stevens' worship of lower court decisions that based their idiocy on a LIE about Cruikshank. SO what was that 200 years (in other words the ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS BEFORE MILLER)



I see you have abandoned your claim (which you never established in the first place) that the FOUNDERS intended a FEDERAL POWER TO RESTRICT (in any possible way) what private arms citizens could own

 

[justabubba]

The Supreme Courts opinion has the force of law and becomes the reality for all of us. Your personal opinion.... well .... its just your personal opinion and means nothing in the scheme of things regarding that reality we all live in.

At least most of us.

a legal scholar
who is also a courtroom expert witness about guns
tells us that the US Supreme Court was wrong
no way you can go with the US Supreme Court

but at one time he did get something right:

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
... use restrictions that are the least restrictive means of preventing harm do not violate the right to keep and bear arms ...

[emphasis added by bubba]

You have been informed that the application of the 2A to the states was going to create unavoidable conflict between police powers and a fundamental right. a conflict that does not exist at the federal level. but its easy to resolve since use restrictions that are the least restrictive means of preventing harm do not violate the right to keep and bear arms

and speaking of glaring contradictions: faux concern over the 2A being violated by USE restrictions when you support complete bans on firearms

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...-going-too-far-w-260-a-37.html#post1064290695

 

[TurtleDude]

The Supreme Court and FDR did not create the commerce clause. It was placed there by the Founders in 1787.

and it was not expanded to cover INDIVIDUALS UNTIL FDR. are you even aware of the fact that there were decisions prior to the FDR decision that said the commerce clause granted the federal government no power over private individuals acting within the confines of their own sovereign states

Tell me Haymarket, would the Hoover Coolidge or even wilson era court find that the commerce clause would allow the congress to sanction a FARMER GROWING WHEAT FOR HIS OWN private use?

 

[haymarket]

Two centuries of history? that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Indeed, Heller noted how lower courts ignored the Cruikshank decision and indeed commentators noted that (most likely senile) Stevens' worship of lower court decisions that based their idiocy on a LIE about Cruikshank. SO what was that 200 years (in other words the ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS BEFORE MILLER)



I see you have abandoned your claim (which you never established in the first place) that the FOUNDERS intended a FEDERAL POWER TO RESTRICT (in any possible way) what private arms citizens could own

One cannot help but notice that NOWHERE in your reply did you actually step up to the challenge I presented to you: where in this decision does it say that the Second Amendment is an individual right and does not depend on the first half of the sentence explaining its connection to the militia?

 

[TurtleDude]

a legal scholar
who is also a courtroom expert witness about guns
tells us that the US Supreme Court was wrong
no way you can go with the US Supreme Court

but at one time he did get something right:
[emphasis added by bubba]


http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...-going-too-far-w-260-a-37.html#post1064290695

You apparently still didn't understand that my use restrictions were at a STATE LEVEL. Are you pretending if city hall says no discharge of firearms on public streets that is the same as the federal government banning handguns?

 

[haymarket]

and it was not expanded to cover INDIVIDUALS UNTIL FDR. are you even aware of the fact that there were decisions prior to the FDR decision that said the commerce clause granted the federal government no power over private individuals acting within the confines of their own sovereign states

Tell me Haymarket, would the Hoover Coolidge or even wilson era court find that the commerce clause would allow the congress to sanction a FARMER GROWING WHEAT FOR HIS OWN private use?

So what? Gold can lie buried for eons - but it is still there even though its value was not yet discovered for a very long time. It is still gold just the same.

 

[TurtleDude]

One cannot help but notice that NOWHERE in your reply did you actually step up to the challenge I presented to you: where in this decision does it say that the Second Amendment is an individual right and does not depend on the first half of the sentence explaining its connection to the militia?

that question demonstrates that you have ignored the fact that the founders merely intended that the second amendment RECOGNIZE a pre-existing right which cannot possibly be based on merely being part of a post-governmental creation body

 

[haymarket]

You apparently still didn't understand that my use restrictions were at a STATE LEVEL. Are you pretending if city hall says no discharge of firearms on public streets that is the same as the federal government banning handguns?

Is not the Second Amendment applicable to all the people in all the states?

 

[TurtleDude]

So what? Gold can lie buried for eons - but it is still there even though its value was not yet discovered for a very long time. It is still gold just the same.

that's not relevant. the court had for years rejected that interpretation. so it was nothing more than a political choice. TO pretend otherwise is without merit

 

[haymarket]

that question demonstrates that you have ignored the fact that the founders merely intended that the second amendment RECOGNIZE a pre-existing right which cannot possibly be based on merely being part of a post-governmental creation body

Do you need me to reproduce right here your own admission that there was no such thing as a so called "pre-existing right" that protected anybody and it took government to actually do that? I will be happy to do so.