Supreme Court upholds reach of US gun ban for domestic violence

[Moot]

Actually I am far more an originalist. I couldn't care less what he believed as to the second amendment. My father went to HS with him and he as anti gun back then. The fact remains, the bannerrhoid movement has absolutely no valid claim that the constitution was intended to give the federal government ANY powers to restrict what sort of arms private citizens wish to own or buy etc.

Do you have any documents from the founders that even remotely support the BM position?

The founders obviously believed they had the power to regulate firearms because some of the first legislation they passed in the new congress were the Militia Acts that expanded on the second amendment, detailing the governments authority to regulate firearms and training.....and impose a draft. So I think Bork was probably right about the founders intent....and you're not. It's ironically amusing that you used him as an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. lol

 

[TurtleDude]

The founders obviously believed they had the power to regulate firearms because some of the first legislation they passed in the new congress were the Militia Acts that expanded on the second amendment, detailing the governments authority to regulate firearms and training.....and impose a draft. So I think Bork was probably right about the founders intent....and you're not. It's ironically amusing that you used him as an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. lol

stop the lies: that has nothing to do with private citizens. Its as stupid as saying because the federal government could issue uniforms to the military that also means congress could tell a housewife how she had to dress in her home or what a bartender had to wear at his place of business.

 

[DiAnna]

Thank god. Finally!

Yeah, I'm biased on this topic. In my lifetime, four women I knew, all friends, neighbors and/or colleagues, were shot to death by husbands who had previously been convicted of domestic violence, yet were able to legally purchase the weapons they used to murder their wives... and in one case, their three children as well. Over the decades, I believe there have probably been tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of incidents of guns being legally purchased by individuals convicted of domestic abuse and later using those weapons on their spouses.

And to those who are using the "third strike lifer who stole a pizza" defense, by pleading that domestic violence by those convicted of previous attacks on their spouses/SO's were only misdemeanors, what the hell are you thinking? What you should be asking is why the devil is assaulting, battering, or otherwise committing violence on a spouse/SO not a damned felony in the first place!

Argghhhh, I'm too close to this, have seen repeat abusers buy guns and kill women I knew... can't deal with this pansy-ass excuse-making. So I'm outta here, before I earn my first DP infraction.

 

[Moot]

stop the lies: that has nothing to do with private citizens. Its as stupid as saying because the federal government could issue uniforms to the military that also means congress could tell a housewife how she had to dress in her home or what a bartender had to wear at his place of business.

Stop the denial and the ridiculous false comparisons and slippery slope fallacies.

The militias were the private citizens of the States...and the Nation.

 

[TurtleDude]

Stop the denial and the ridiculous false comparisons and slippery slope fallacies.

The militias were the private citizens of the States...and the Nation.

so it is your belief that congress having power to arm a federal militia meant that the founders believed congress had the power to ban private citizens from owning firearms? that is beyond intellectually dishonest.

BTW MOOT why were you afraid to answer my question?

 

[Moot]

so it is your belief that congress having power to arm a federal militia meant that the founders believed congress had the power to ban private citizens from owning firearms? that is beyond intellectually dishonest.

BTW MOOT why were you afraid to answer my question?

I think the founders believed that firearms for hunting and self defense was an equal right and self evident. But they also believed that when people live in society and form a constitutional government they give up certain rights...such as the right to use violence in defense of self and property.. in return for government protection, justice and the force of law. So yes, it is my belief that congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms and provide for the security and safety of the public. But if you mean a total ban on guns...no, I do not believe the government has that authority....and its intellectually dishonest that you think it does.

Btw...what question of yours am I supposed to be afraid of answering?

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the founders believed that firearms for hunting and self defense was an equal right and self evident. But they also believed that when people live in society and form a constitutional government they give up certain rights...such as the right to use violence in defense of self and property.. in return for government protection, justice and the force of law. So yes, it is my belief that congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms and provide for the security and safety of the public. But if you mean a total ban on guns...no, I do not believe the government has that authority....and its intellectually dishonest that you think it does.

Btw...what question of yours am I supposed to be afraid of answering?

you're just making that up. There is no evidence whatsoever that the founders intended-whatsoever-that the federal government have any say over what private citizens did in their states. period

 

[Moot]

you're just making that up. There is no evidence whatsoever that the founders intended-whatsoever-that the federal government have any say over what private citizens did in their states. period

Then Bork the Banneroid must've just made it up, too. :roll:

Oh btw...Bork taught at Yale Law School...so I guess I'm in good company. :2razz: lol

 

[Master PO]

you're just making that up. There is no evidence whatsoever that the founders intended-whatsoever-that the federal government have any say over what private citizens did in their states. period

both Madison and Hamilton state in the federalist the federal government cannot regulate the people or their property.

federalist 46 for Madison and 84 for Hamilton

 

[TurtleDude]

Then Bork the Banneroid must've just made it up, too. :roll:

Oh btw...Bork taught at Yale Law School...so I guess I'm in good company. :2razz: lol

of course he did, I was at Yale when he taught there. His son Charlie was a good friend of mine.

 

[TurtleDude]

both Madison and Hamilton state in the federalist the federal government cannot regulate the people or their property.

federalist 46 for Madison and 84 for Hamilton

for over 100 years the CC was held not to give congress any power over private citizens. FDR and his toadies completely rejected precedent, original intent and plain meaning. Have you ever noticed the paucity of lefties supporting the FDR actions?

 

[Master PO]

for over 100 years the CC was held not to give congress any power over private citizens. FDR and his toadies completely rejected precedent, original intent and plain meaning. Have you ever noticed the paucity of lefties supporting the FDR actions?

the left supports democracy as a form of government , a national government controlling the entire u.s., usurping the states of their powers, and rights created and controlled by the government.

FDR and the USSC by skullduggery, increased powers of the federal government, and control over the people

 

[Moot]

for over 100 years the CC was held not to give congress any power over private citizens. FDR and his toadies completely rejected precedent, original intent and plain meaning. Have you ever noticed the paucity of lefties supporting the FDR actions?

What is the CC? The Constitution? I'm pretty sure that Congress has constitutional authority over "private" citizens. Private citizens are also citizens of the State they reside in and are subject to State laws....and they are also citizens of a nation...and are subject to federal laws.

Americans have dual citizenship....a state citizenship...and national citizenship. Not sure if private citizenship is recognized like a State and/or National citizen is. I mean, I don't think private citizens have sovereignty like a state or national citizen does.

So if the laws weren't meant to have power over citizens ...then what or who are laws for?

Paucity...means lack of support...but .is that what you mean?

 

[jonny5]

I find it ironic that, on the same day, the Supreme Court has elected to make a misguided effort to protect the lives of abused women while deciding that unborn babies and women seeking abortions in unregulated clinics should not be protected.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

It is odd that we use an implied right to privacy to protect abortion, and yet smoking a plant isnt legal? Or a clearly defined right to bear arms is highly regulated. Why can you get an abortion on demand without a background check or a federal license, yet buying a gun requires govt permission?

 

[jonny5]

That's not true at all. According to the SCOTUS ruling, you have to be convicted of domestic violence in order to lose your gun rights. You can take your boogeyman elsewhere.

I meant terrorism.