- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The Constitution pretty much states The right to firearm ownership shall not be abridged...doesnt?...
The ATF should be raiding these guns shows and busting everyone breaking the law.
yes, within the context of a well-regulated citizen militia, which is supervised, trained, and controlled by a state authority.
another fail and where does the federal government get the power to regulate small arms
Nope. Swing and a miss.the federal government has the power to regulate all inter-state trade.
Nope. Swing and miss.if its made in state A...and sold to someone in state B, Congress has the power to regulate it.
The courts are not infallible and as long as they support infringements on the 2nd amendment then they will always be wrong regarding the 2nd amendment. As long as you support infringements on the second amendment you are not pro-2nd amendment.It amounts to saying you are for freedom of religion but think Judaism should be banned.
Nope. Swing and a miss.
Nope. Swing and miss.
the federal government has the power to regulate all inter-state trade.
if its made in state A...and sold to someone in state B, Congress has the power to regulate it.
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
FAIL.
And, if you cared to learn about the history of it the commerce clause was included only to make regular trade disputes within the states. This is to limit tariffs placed on goods from one state to another or otherwise to make prices regular according to the Union agreement. States were to be sovereign but could not unduly create a trade imbalance with each other. Thus, the fail is yours. Later.The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
FAIL.
that was never intended nor ever interpreted to grant the power you claim it does until FDR decided he needed a way to restrict the sale of tommy guns.
commerce among the several states means the several states-not the people acting as individuals
FAIL
...but once I own that gun it no longer is affecting interstate commerce if I decided to sell it to someone who also lives in ohio.
I did not say they were infallible. I said this was our system. BTW, you're not infallibale. We should gets this out in the open. You really are just as likely, if not more likley, to be wrong in how you read than the courts have been, on any issue. That said, the courts are where these questions play out, are debated, the battle fought. Sometimes your belief wins, and sometimes if loses. When our side loses, it is best to not whine and pout and call the court names, but roll up your sleves and make a better argument.
You have a right to both.Both are rights the government has no business regulating or infringing on.And you are again making a tree frog to apple comparison. Weapons are not equal to religion.
Sorry, you misread the amendment and the law, and are having some trouble seeing what is a real comparison.
yes, within the context of a well-regulated citizen militia, which is supervised, trained, and controlled by a state authority.
you are contradicting your earlier statement:
please, explain.
A well regulated militia and the peoples right to keep and bear arms are two separate rights.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a short reading about the Commerce Clause, shows that it was used to give the federal govt. power to regulate inter-state commerce & commercial activities, long before the New Deal.
neither affects interstate commerce as the clause was intended. the second doesn't even affect it using the specious and dishonest FDR interpretation
it was never used to regulate items such as fireearms
If the court blatantly ignores what the constitution says then they are wrong period.
You have a right to both.Both are rights the government has no business regulating or infringing on.
This from the person who swears up and down that a well regulated peoples right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution.
if it could be used to regulate inter-state boat travel, it can also be used to regulate inter-state gun sales.
but like you said earlier, Congress would have a tough time proving they have the right to regulate the sale of guns that are manufactured & sold in the same state.
yes, within the context of a well-regulated citizen militia, which is supervised, trained, and controlled by a state authority.
That's only true if that is what was actually done. Realize you THINKING that's what they did is not equal to them doing it.
And one is allowed to be regulated, as it is a tool and not people. Keep the difference in mind.
Yep. And people are allowed to keep and bear arms. Hunter have rifles, and people have hand guns, and so on. But the law allows for regulation. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.
Which amendment gives you the inalienable right to keep and bear boats?
Sorry, two different arguments
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?