It is an absurb scenario that happens so rarely that you probably have a better chance of getting hit by lightning. That said...to play along with your little skewed game. Are you aware that a large number of people killed in these types of situations are killed with their own guns?
So a different scenario that probably is more likely to occur than yours would be:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?
is not part of the Constitution and you darn well know it from our previous conversations in which you were unable to present a single shred of evidence that it was ratified.
all of the clauses in the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses placed right on top of congress head!
Your personal opinion is irrelevant next to the actual language of the Constitution. It means nothing and has no force of law.
sorry not my opinion...James Madison's fact
Madison ---The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions." Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.
Again, where do we draw the line?
James Madisons opinion is also irrelevant as it also has no force of law.
You lied about what the Second Amendment says. Your argument is without truth or honor.
is not part of the Constitution and you darn well know it from our previous conversations in which you were unable to present a single shred of evidence that it was ratified.
Clue for you Herr Barkmann: the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are two different things with two very different wordings and cover two (or more) very different subjects. Do NOT confuse one with the other. Do NOT attempt to substitute the language contained in one for the other.
It is totally honest. It DOES NOT HAVE TO MENTION FIREARMS. The powers authorize Congress and lots of things can be included in taking those actions - firearms just one of them. But, your own argument is incorrect as paragraphs specificly covers arms.
It doesn't specify, mostly because at the time, the people were the military, there was no absurd dick waving contest going on. It also doesn't restrict private citizens from owning nukes. Do you support that too?
That is my general principal, I don't have a firm number of acceptable deaths per minute, nor the technical knowledge to specify types of guns.
that's just stupid. Nukes are not arms but ordnance and since you believe the the government should be able to impose all sorts of limitations, its a dishonest argument
sorry, you cant deal with truth...
all the 10 amendments are declaratory restrictive to the federal government...they give the government no powers at all!
lets see ...the preamble to the constitution is part of the constitution , but the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the constitution???...........please, you can do better than that.
nope-it was not intended to be a general grant of power
Yet there are tons of Libertarians who make that exact argument. Nice try to squirm your way out of an honest question though.
The US Supreme Court says otherwise. So you have your right to an opinion but as it has no force of law and the actual force of law says the opposite - that is all that counts in the real world USA of 2014.
This will help you on that issue:
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I
The truth is that your opinion is irrelevant next to the actual Constitution. can you deal with that? :roll:
The truth is that your opinion is irrelevant next to the actual Constitution. can you deal with that? :roll:
The US Supreme Court says otherwise. So you have your right to an opinion but as it has no force of law and the actual force of law says the opposite - that is all that counts in the real world USA of 2014.
This will help you on that issue:
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I
I have been posting on guns probably longer and in more depth than anyone on DP though there was this one guy who shows up every once in awhile who is pretty specific and well educated.
I have always said the founders saw WEAPONS OF WAR in three CATEGORIES
ARMS-what someone would keep and bear-muskets, spears, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, shotguns
the stuff you'd bring to the muster if the village militia was called up
ORDNANCE-bombs, rockets, grenades, greek fire
ARTILLERY-Cannon, howitzers, mortars
To be honest though, the Supreme Court is often hobbled by the fact that the genie is out of the bottle and there's no real way to put it back and therefore, their decisions need to be practical, even if they stray from the Constitution.
Which, of course, didn't apply to the people at the time that the Constitution was written. People were free to own cannons and other period armaments and were expected to bring them out for use in time of war. There was no standing military, the second amendment was not written with one in mind. But don't let that get in the way of your little rant.
Yes I can do better. lets make a wager Herr Barkmann. If you can offer proof that the preamble to the Bill of Rights was ratified by the proper number of states and is an official part of the Constitution then I will leave here and never return in any form. If you fail to do so then you leave and never return.
Now you cannot get any better than that.
Ready to put your existence where your beliefs are?
that is essentially the Scalia and Calebresi (Steven, not Guido, argument which has been called (By Calabresi most recently) the "Faint hearted originalist position
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?