The right winger doth protest too much, methinks

[Casper]

Then why worry at all? It shouldn't bother you that guns are banned because military people like you will still have access to them.

No longer in the military, but I do have access to them and will continue to not matter what silly laws are passed. I do not worry about me, but I do believe my fellow Citizens should retain their rights as set forth by the Founders.

 

[TurtleDude]

So...long story short. There are in fact reasonable restrictions on weapons that are in fact allowed. Even Scalia has been forced to admit to that reality. What types of restrictions are heavily debatable, but even a constitutional conservative like yourself must admit that yes in fact there is room to further discuss that issue. This is really the point I'm making in this thread. Rather than attempt to have a rational discussion about what would be in the best interest of the country most conservatives want to just point to the constitution assuming it backs their ideas, but in reality it doesn't. It's at best heavily debatable, and even the most purely strict interpretational judge in recent history must concede that fact. This is why a the 1994 ban on assault weapons was in fact upheld by courts. The government does in fact have the right to ban certain types of weapons that are excessively dangerous and unnecessary for a common defense.

Liberals, at least not many I know are not proposing anything more than what has already been proven to be constitutionally legit. Yet whenever these types of debates come up conservatives try and jump right to an amendment that doesn't actually say what they seem to think it does.

so you believe the founders intended, and the language of the commerce clause empowers a way for the federal government to engage in firearms control? we aren't talking about states

what federal court upheld the "assault weapon" ban when it was in place.

Hey if civilian cops have it-that destroys the claim it has no legitimate civilian use to the point that other civilians cannot even own it

 

[Bassman]

First, let me just say I'm not particularly interested in debating any of these examples in this particular thread. I'm more interested in the general notion.

Second, if you insist. I would say none, but if you're going to make money off of the public don't you think the public should have some say into the ethics for which you should be running your business?

Ummmm, no.

 

[matchlight]

So...long story short. There are in fact reasonable restrictions on weapons that are in fact allowed. Even Scalia has been forced to admit to that reality. What types of restrictions are heavily debatable, but even a constitutional conservative like yourself must admit that yes in fact there is room to further discuss that issue. This is really the point I'm making in this thread. Rather than attempt to have a rational discussion about what would be in the best interest of the country most conservatives want to just point to the constitution assuming it backs their ideas, but in reality it doesn't. It's at best heavily debatable, and even the most purely strict interpretational judge in recent history must concede that fact. This is why a the 1994 ban on assault weapons was in fact upheld by courts. The government does in fact have the right to ban certain types of weapons that are excessively dangerous and unnecessary for a common defense.

Liberals, at least not many I know are not proposing anything more than what has already been proven to be constitutionally legit. Yet whenever these types of debates come up conservatives try and jump right to an amendment that doesn't actually say what they seem to think it does.

The Court made clear in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is individual; that it predates the Constitution; and that it in no way depends upon the Constitution for its existence. It also made clear it was acknowledged as a fundamental right of English subjects by the late 1600's. The Second Amendment simply codifies that right and commands that it "shall not be infringed." The widely recognized types of restrictions on the right that Justice Scalia acknowledged--e.g. that it does not extend to felons or the mentally ill, or to carrying concealed weapons, or to carrying firearms in certain sensitive places like government buildings--were ones that had already been carved out of it by 1791.

True liberals, most of whom these days are called "conservatives," defend the right protected by the Second Amendment as strongly as the rights protected by the First. Almost every poster I have seen on forums like these who claims to be a liberal is anything but. They are pseudo-liberals, and they never tire of portraying themselves as intellectually superior cosmopolitans. They imagine they are on a mission to defend all things civilized from the nativists and primitives--that is, conservatives--in the hoi polloi. But in fact most of these fake liberals show themselves to be as dim and ignorant as they are intolerant and narrow-minded. They want to use government to coerce everyone else into doing whatever they happen to think is noble and wondrous. And they see the Constitution--rightly--as an obstacle to their totalitarian urges.

 

[MrWonka]

so you believe the founders intended, and the language of the commerce clause empowers a way for the federal government to engage in firearms control?

No, the commerce clause deals with making it illegal for businesses who engage in commerce to discriminate based on things like skin color, religion, and sexual orientation.

Some would argue that the commerce clause would allow for the regulation of gun companies and gun sellers. I'm not sure about that, but it's possible.

what federal court upheld the "assault weapon" ban when it was in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Legal_challenges

 

[MrWonka]

Ummmm, no.

Nice rational argument you made there.

In that case should I be allowed to own slaves?

 

[Henrin]

No, the commerce clause deals with making it illegal for businesses who engage in commerce to discriminate based on things like skin color, religion, and sexual orientation.

It does? Where exactly does it do that?

 

[Eric7216]

Sure, it's called the fourth amendment:
That can be found in a number of places. The most obvious being the right of congress to regulate interstate commerce, the 14th amendments equal protection clause, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the unanimous decision of Brown vs the Board of education.
In general no, but if you want to participate in commerce, and operate a public business then yes you are subject to regulations that are allowed by the constitution.

Well, thank you for making an attempt. Reaching on the 4th. A fetus has different DNA than the mother so it would be a stretch to claim that the person that makes up the fetus lacks 4th amendment protections while the mother does. I guess the 4th also protects slave owners and we perhaps don't want to extend the definitions that far.
Hard to see how a baker in Oregon and a cake buyer in Oregon affect interstate commerce. I see nothing in the 14th-you seem to be only granting privileges and immunities to buyers but not sellers. Civil Rights Act of 1964 in not a constitutional thing and only covered race, national origin, religion, color, and sex. Perhaps religion could apply here if there was a religion that held a dogma belief in SSM but feelings about SSM seems to be more of personal belief than some organized religious dogma. We are still allowed personal beliefs, one would hope. Did the cake buyers claim discrimination on THEIR religious beliefs?
Brown v Board of Education concerned race only, not freedom of belief systems. It is not constitutional but simply an Supreme Court decision. Yes, unanimous but remember that it overturned a Supreme Court decision that was 7-1. The court can be wrong or swayed by public opinion.

And the bottom line is that this post claimed that conservatives claim to be supporters of the Constitution yet ignorant of it. These issues mentioned are at least subject to disagreements and it is not some clear cut, plain as day, interpretations.

 

[Henrin]

A business that uses and depends on infrastructure paid for by the taxpaying public and depends on the public for it's profit, doesn't have a right to discriminate against the public.

Don't businesses also pay for the roads?

 

[Henrin]

That can be found in a number of places. The most obvious being the right of congress to regulate interstate commerce, the 14th amendments equal protection clause, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the unanimous decision of Brown vs the Board of education.

So if I buy a product in my own state from a seller in my own state that is somehow interstate commerce?

Also, I'm pretty sure the only party mentioned in the equal protection clause is states, so when did businesses become states?

 

[Moot]

Yeah, however, they were all duties enumerated in the constitution. He wasn't at all onboard with the SCOTUS play to take power. He was the Madison in Madison v Marbury.

Perhaps you can show me where a national bank and a standing army are enumerated in the constitution.

 

[Moot]

Don't businesses also pay for the roads?

Which came first...the business...or the roads to the business? Not many modern businesses can claim they were here before the infrastructure they use conduct business.

 

[Henrin]

Which came first...the business...or the roads to the business? Not many modern businesses can claim they were here before the infrastructure they use conduct business.

Why does any of this matter? Doesn't pretty much everyone benefit from the use of roads?

 

[clownboy]

No, the commerce clause deals with making it illegal for businesses who engage in commerce to discriminate based on things like skin color, religion, and sexual orientation.

Some would argue that the commerce clause would allow for the regulation of gun companies and gun sellers. I'm not sure about that, but it's possible.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Legal_challenges

The commerce clause only applies to commerce between states.

 

[clownboy]

Perhaps you can show me where a national bank and a standing army are enumerated in the constitution.

Hamilton and Jefferson had this debate. Article 1 Section 8.

US Constitution – Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

 

[Moot]

Why does any of this matter? Doesn't pretty much everyone benefit from the use of roads?

The tax paying public paid for the infrastructure that allows for the business to exist.

 

[Moot]

Hamilton and Jefferson had this debate. Article 1 Section 8.

Unfortunately, when Madison called forth the militias for the common defense, not only were they unprepared...but many state governors refused to obey his orders. I think that's what ultimately convinced him in the need for a strong federal government.

 

[Mr Person]

Why does it always seem like those who reference the constitution in their arguments seem to be the ones who have the least understanding of that document and it's meaning?

It's basically another version of a violation of Godwin's law. People seem to think that invoking something significant in making an argument makes the argument more powerful, whether it be to call the opposition something really bad or to claim that one's own position embraces something really good. The problem is they rarely bother to explain why it is they think the comparison is appropriate.

So they'll compare something to nazism but not say why it's like exterminating people on the basis of religion and trying to take over the world.

Or they'll say something is "unconstitutional" without a single case citation. They'll just say "well, here's the text of the constitution, and here's my statement about what it means (because apparently, I'm the Supreme Court)".

 

[Henrin]

The tax paying public paid for the infrastructure that allows for the business to exist.

Why does the use of a public service that everyone uses and most pays for somehow limit the rights of businesses?

 

[Moot]

Why does the use of a public service that everyone uses and most pays for somehow limit the rights of businesses?

I don't think a business that depends on and profits from the tax paying public has a right to discriminate against any member of the taxpaying public based on their race or gender. Who says a business has a right to do business in a community or a state? Do the people have a right to decide what kind of businesses they want in their communities?


.

 

[TurtleDude]

The tax paying public paid for the infrastructure that allows for the business to exist.

so no businesses existed before the federal government was created?

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think a business that depends on and profits from the tax paying public has a right to discriminate against any member of the taxpaying public based on their race or gender. Who says a business has a right to do business in a community or a state? Do the people have a right to decide what kind of businesses they want in their communities?


.

so when you create a business don't discriminate. like it or not, it is an improper use of federal power to tell a business whom it must serve

 

[Moot]

so no businesses existed before the federal government was created?

Unless you count building the ports and providing protections for the export and import trades and shipping industry...then there probably wasn't a great need for infrastructure considering the only business was slavery and cotton. Nobody wanted to pay for roads... not even local governments. No doubt that many important events were delayed or canceled and businesses went broke because of muddy roads and washed out bridges.

 

[Moot]

so when you create a business don't discriminate. like it or not, it is an improper use of federal power to tell a business whom it must serve

Obviously, "We the people" disagree.

 

[TurtleDude]

Obviously, "We the people" disagree.

obviously the people you claim to speak for have no clue about either the first or tenth amendments.