SmarterthanYou
rebel
except for that majority vote in California who are doing all they can to take guns. fuck you.
SHALL NOT BE INNFRINGED
or are abortion restrictions also perfectly legal?
Shocking, another mass murder, they've become as American as apple pie
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
or are abortion restrictions also perfectly legal?
evince
Truthmatters
so you agree that states can ban guns whole sale if they choose to?
the right of the people remember
or a state can choose to allow a ten year old to buy a gun huh?
evince
Truthmatters
The right to arms does not flow from the 2nd Amendment.
The right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.
The federal government is forbidden from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms not because the 2nd Amendment says so . . . The federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. IOW, the right isn't what the 2nd says; the right is what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government* from exercising powers it was never granted.
* and now state and local governments McDonald v Chicago, (2010)
.
Well, the Supreme Court said in 1876 that the foundational principles of the Constitution means that states could not disarm their citizens "even laying the [2nd Amendment] out of view". In 2010 the Court applied the 14th Amendment to the 2nd Amendment which made the 2nd Amendment's prohibitions enforceable against the states.
In the end the answer is, NO.
Well, they could, but they would be fighting federal preemption and supremacy which demands states follow the federal law. Of course if the Gun Control Act of 1968 were to be found unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to write any law on the private ownership of guns, then a state could write such a law . . . But . . . then it would run afoul of the 14th Amendment which forbids any state to make or enforce any law that injures a right recognized on the federal level.
So, in the end the answer is again, NO.
All rights are alienable. I have yet to have anyone identify one that isn’t. Inherent rights? Nope. Until it is codified, your “inherency” carries no weight in law.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
domer fucktard believes that you only have permissions that can be denied by the government at will.
Never heard of the 9th or 10th Amendments huh? They announce the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and that of inherent (retained) unenumerated (not codified) rights as being rules of constitutional interpretation.
I find it amusing (in a 'what a dumb fuck' kinda way) that you are disavowing the legal theory by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights of abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights including gay marriage have been recognized and secured.
Did you mean to do that or is that just a unintended outcome that flows from your profound ignorance of the US Constitution?
You hide behind your gun collection and your wall of KKK/neo-Nazi brethren who live alongside you on your home street...
...because you're not man enough to face a real man one on one with no guns or crowd of armed, goon comrades to protect you.
Just like the rest of your Aryan Nation Klan buddies, you are a big-mouthed, gutless pussy and you know it.
Since you claim to know where I am (pictures you've posted, etc.) and haven't shown your cowardly ass yet, guess we know you're not a real man. Thanks for admitting it.
Still haven’t packed that pissant popgun to the courthouse to test that ”infringed” thing, have you, pussy?
lol
The Constitution doesn’t SAY a lot of things. So, the government has no interest in those issues?
Wrong.
Odd. You just stated:
“federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.”
Yet, here you are, stating the opposite. It appears they do have an”interest”. Restrictions abound, pally, on rights.
Rights not mentioned = inherent rights? Pffft. Take that to court, pally
“
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I notice that you didn't even attempt to deny the fact that you don't believe in rights, but government approved permissions. too many pathetic pissant cowards like you who would be all too willing to convict someone who dared believe in rights.
But the Constitution says that what I say is true.
The federal government possesses only the express, limited powers granted to it.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Everything not granted to the feds is retained by the people (rights) or the states (state powers delegated by the state's citizens through their particular constitutions, again holding rights out of the compact).
State constitution are especially interesting to read. They call out the rights of the citizen before any powers are delegated or duties assigned.
Just for shits and giggles my state's (Pennsylvania) first constitution established in 1776 first calls out "THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS" then begins to set-out the "PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT".
Wouldn't that be backwards if rights only existed because of their recognition by government?
The current PA constitution still follows that formula; in Article I the origin and existence of rights are declared and forever held out of the powers being conferred, then the government's powers and organization and duties laid out in subsequent Articles.
Do you find that structure of state constitutions at all interesting or compelling?
I'm sorry I did not specifically point out that the federal government has enacted unconstitutional law, I was just speaking of what the law is in the context of evince's posts. God knows I didn't want to complicate things with her saying the law was actually invalid.
Many, many challenges to unconstitutional laws are making their way through the courts. It takes time to pump out the bilges and get the government properly righted on its keel.
Русский агент
Путин - мl
Good points.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the main problem with most libs and cons is that they feel they have to rely upon supreme court decisions as to what the constitution allows and doesn't allow. It shows an inability to think for themselves and that the constitution and the 'law' is just way too difficult and complex for the common person to understand, so courts, lawyers, and judges are absolutely necessary to tell us what they all mean. Until there comes an issue that they've been led to believe they must support, like abortion or guns, then they come off like con law experts and that those judges don't know shit.
domer 76 is correct that the idea of natural law comes from people, not a superstitious cloud guy that doesn't exist. Abatis is a moron. He is only armed with a tiny speck of misinformation, but in the hands of a doofus, the ignorance is magnified. If natural law does not depend upon a deity, then it comes from an abstract idea of men, therefore it does not matter whether the right to keep and bear arms
is of constitutional origin or not. It is still a human abstraction made into social contract, not a sacrament. It can be erased by a 2/3 majority just as it was written, and having done so, can be enforced by violence, as was done with cavemen, Hammurabi , Napoleon or the Dumpstocity himself.
Violence is not itself a law or a right. THINK!
is of constitutional origin or not. It is still a human abstraction made into social contract, not a sacrament. It can be erased by a 2/3 majority just as it was written, and having done so, can be enforced by violence, as was done with cavemen, Hammurabi , Napoleon or the Dumpstocity himself.
Violence is not itself a law or a right. THINK!
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
So who gave you the right to free speech? Got a name?