lizzie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 28,580
- Reaction score
- 31,554
- Location
- between two worlds
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You, or I or others can express a willingness to express an acceptance that Americans have a right to legally own and register guns - but for me that does not mean carte blanche or does it mean that I believe that certain guns and ammunition that are now legal should remain legal, i.e. AR 15 type weapons and magazine clips with more than 10 rounds.
Ahem, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with registration. It specifies the right to own and bear arms. It doesn't matter whether you accept it or not.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the government has a RIGHT to legislate gun ownership within certain parameters - that's what SCOTUS does they rule on laws to determine if they are constitutional and their rulings can change over time. My point is that the SCOTUS has ruled that gun registration IS constitutional and therefore not in violation of the 2nd amendment.Ahem, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with registration. It specifies the right to own and bear arms. It doesn't matter whether you accept it or not.
the tenth amendment prohibits registration
The SCOTUS has ruled that the government has a RIGHT to legislate gun ownership within certain parameters - that's what SCOTUS does they rule on laws to determine if they are constitutional and their rulings can change over time. My point is that the SCOTUS has ruled that gun registration IS constitutional and therefore not in violation of the 2nd amendment.
Can you show one case that was ruled the way you suggest that is valid today and wiped out gun registration laws?
The SCOTUS has ruled that the government has a RIGHT to legislate gun ownership within certain parameters - that's what SCOTUS does they rule on laws to determine if they are constitutional and their rulings can change over time. My point is that the SCOTUS has ruled that gun registration IS constitutional and therefore not in violation of the 2nd amendment.
was that what the ruling was or was that dicta? where did they rule that gun registration was legal on a federal scale?
"The court emphasized that it was not casting doubt on many kinds of gun regulations — including prohibitions on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, laws keeping guns away from schools and government buildings and laws imposing restrictions like waiting periods on the sale of guns."
Where did they not? In the recent DC case they ruled that a complete ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional and in the same ruling it was determined that"
Read more: Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment Supersedes Local Gun-Control Laws - TIME
Why the Straw Man argument? Fox News does the same thing when they say "Some are saying" but what "some say" or your use of "many scholars" is meaningless unless or until the SCOTUS rule otherwise. It would be like my saying that "many scholars believe that gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment is meant only for a militia not private citizens." Many "scholars" say that too but it doesn't make them right, does it? Nor does it make your "scholars" right who agree with you, does it?and show me what language in the constitution delegated that power to the government
I find many things the USSC has done since 1933 to be contrary to the constitution and many scholars agree with me
that's called dicta-it was not a matter in controversy in the case
Just out of curiosity, what do you personally think that gun registration, in the US, consists of?
Where has it been ruled illegal to require gun registration or waiting periods after applying to buy a gun? Why should be people be required to have a driver's license and take a written and driving test and to have car insurance yet not be required to have similar checks and balances to own a gun? Please do not tell me cars are deadlier than guns....
I think it varies state by state and since I've never contemplated owning a gun nor will I ever own a gun the exact details in my state, NY are not something I have great familiarity with.
the tenth amendment prohibits registration
I just read it .... again. It does nothing of the kind.
Hey genius, in 1776 the militia was private citizens who gathered at a moments notice. Also which militia in historical terms in any country wasnt given the right to fight in a battle without arms? Why would it be put in the Constitution if it was just for Military personell in a militia that would armed regardless? Your argument makes no senseWhy the Straw Man argument? Fox News does the same thing when they say "Some are saying" but what "some say" or your use of "many scholars" is meaningless unless or until the SCOTUS rule otherwise. It would be like my saying that "many scholars believe that gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment is meant only for a militia not private citizens." Many "scholars" say that too but it doesn't make them right, does it? Nor does it make your "scholars" right who agree with you, does it?
well you 'd have to find that delegation of power to the federal government to make the claim you just did
remind me where the power to register firearms was actually delegated to the federal government
I don't recall you ever answering what line of Art 8, sec. 1 supported your desired forms of gun rights infringements. You merely cited that Article and section without further specificity
We went through this just this morning. You pretending otherwise is simply disingenuous.
I just read the 10th again. It says nothing of what you claim.
what it says essentially is that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government remain for the people or the several states
for the life of me I cannot find the power to register firearms delegated to the federal government
it looks like you posted while I was editing --- here is what was missed
your tactic is rather predictable and rather hollow. It consists of two things:
1- claiming that the Constitution does not give the Congress the powers that it indeed gives the Congress and have been upheld by the Supreme Court because you personally have ideological or political or personal or financial objections to them, and then
2- invoking the 10th claiming that all other powers are reserved to the states and thus the powers that you deny but which others say are there are really not there no matter if the Supreme Court says so or not.
YOu have taken the no true scotsman fallacy and simply applied it to what you do not like in the government.
it looks like you posted while I was editing --- here is what was missed
your tactic is rather predictable and rather hollow. It consists of two things:
1- claiming that the Constitution does not give the Congress the powers that it indeed gives the Congress and have been upheld by the Supreme Court because you personally have ideological or political or personal or financial objections to them, and then
2- invoking the 10th claiming that all other powers are reserved to the states and thus the powers that you deny but which others say are there are really not there no matter if the Supreme Court says so or not.
YOu have taken the no true scotsman fallacy and simply applied it to what you do not like in the government.
I am still waiting for you to show me what part of the constitution was intended to give congress that power
line and verse
I agree with you completely! You said it very well, thank you. It's very Fox News to use this approach and also very GOP. It started with Reagan who was famous for stating things that were untrue but said it over and over and over again until a lot of skeptics believed him and that is the approach Fox News uses and the approach that the GOP tried in the last election.
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?