Quoted: Steve, why did you give up the job of moderator again?

Um, Steve? That was rhetorical...  

And, I agree re: "if he's worthy of an actual debate" but I'm having fun, hence the "in a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel sort of way", above.
But he really makes it too easy to be entertaining for long.
I mean, come on, it took less than 2 minutes to identify the Madison quote as a rip-off from another web page (right down to the --'s and quotation marks). Throwing out an alleged quote, taken from only a secondary source (at best), without any attempt to verify its authenticity or accuracy, is really bold or really ... Oh, I forgot, I'm the MORON, IDIOT, STUPID, and insultingly ignorant one in this exchange.

Oh, and by the way, using an M-16 bolt carrier in an AR-15 IS perfectly legal.  
(Maybe they're related...)

Cheers,

One final point:

Quoted: Well I have read Article I - Section 8 at least 1000 times in my lifetime,  are you telling me I dont know what it means?

Yup.

I refer you to your Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers.
James Madison, Federalist, no. 44, 303--5


BTW, your original question of this thread is answered in the final paragraph of this excerpt: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s7.html

You may also want to check out this set of articles on the meaning of each element of the Constitution, in this case the Operation of Coefficient Clause (AKA the "necessary and proper" clause of Art. 1, Sec 8, clause 18)

Quoted: One final point: Quoted: Well I have read Article I - Section 8 at least 1000 times in my lifetime,  are you telling me I dont know what it means? Yup. I refer you to your Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers. James Madison, Federalist, no. 44, 303--5 BTW, your original question of this thread is answered in the final paragraph of this excerpt: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s7.html

I will quote it here:

"If it be asked, what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning? I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them, as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same in short, as if the State Legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort, a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the foederal than of the State Legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former, will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of foederal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State Legislatures and the people, interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State Constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed."


Sounds to me like a polite way of saying "If Cnngress ever does what they are doing now,  they are traitors and the only cause of action is to rebel -- but only if the Supreme Court fails the people".

You may also want to check out this set of articles on the meaning of each element of the Constitution, in this case the Operation of Coefficient Clause (AKA the "necessary and proper" clause of Art. 1, Sec 8, clause 18)

I will quote this article here:

"That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644"

Which reaffirms my point.  

Regulating arms is not in the spirit of the Constitution.  It is not reasonable.  It is not legitimate.  It is not in their power to enact legislation that does'nt carry into execution the powers vested in the Federal Government.  And last regulating arms is not necessary for the execution of its powers.

You really need to think deep about the word "reasonable".  And really,  that is for the Supreme Court to decide.  Any idiot can argue perpetually that he thinks Congress is within reason by regulating arms,  that doesnt mean your right.  We both have our opinions,  I will let a judge decide.  Thats how the system works-- even if I dont agree with a potential ruling.

So until then,  stop arguiing.  You have displayed 0 intelligence.  0 understanding of the Constitution,  0 integrity to the constitution,  and 0 decency to your fellow Americans.

Quoted: I will let a judge decide.  Thats how the system works-- even if I dont agree with a potential ruling.

Oh, please keep us informed when you file suit; I know I, for one, am waiting with baited breath how your "opinion" fares.

"Jonathan ToolofWar v. United States"

Someone in this thread is in for a very tough life.  

I've noticed a high degree of incompetence in a certain age group lately. That incompetence is exacerbated by rampant delusions of adequacy.  Is this a public school issue?

"If it be asked, what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning? I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them, as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same in short, as if the State Legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort, a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the foederal than of the State Legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former, will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of foederal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State Legislatures and the people, interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State Constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed."

Sounds to me like a polite way of saying "If Cnngress ever does what they are doing now,  they are traitors and the only cause of action is to rebel -- but only if the Supreme Court fails the people".

Actually, it says that if the balance of powers (ie the executive and judicial branches) does not redress the alleged wrong by Congress, it is up to the people to elect better Congressmen.
Here's a slogan: "Be a rebel -- Vote!"

You have displayed 0 intelligence.  0 understanding of the Constitution,  0 integrity to the constitution,  and 0 decency to your fellow Americans.

Intelligence: Shall we add a poll to this thread and let your peers decide?

Understanding of the Constitution: again, a poll?

Integrity to the Constitution: Actually, I have sworn oaths "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" both in the civialian and military worlds, and and I take that very seriously.  As an aside, somehow I don't think I'll be seeing you in Al'Anbar with us later this year, despite your screen name.

Decency to fellow Americans: I responded to all three of your screenname posts on this topic with links and information, even after you'd been ID'ed as the banned prior poster. You come here with your hat in your hands, but spit at people who don't give you the answers you want.

You're right, Steve: this isn't worth it anymore.

Best of luck, Tool.  Post your results.

Cheers, Otto


ETA: One final bit of advice: If you're insistent in using "your" in place of  "you're" in your briefs to whichever court you end up in, the judge will be very annoyed.

I think something isn’t being said here. If you beat your kids or wife you don’t need to have a gun in the house anyway . If this is a misunderstanding buy the cops than it sucks to be you. Try getting on an airplane if your name is on the no-fly list. Even if your not the one they are talking about you still don’t fly that day. Its not fair but it happens all the time. The law is what you make of it. There is always a loophole somewhere. FIND IT

Quoted: I think something isn’t being said here. If you beat your kids or wife you don’t need to have a gun in the house anyway . If this is a misunderstanding buy the cops than it sucks to be you. Try getting on an airplane if your name is on the no-fly list. Even if your not the one they are talking about you still don’t fly that day. Its not fair but it happens all the time. The law is what you make of it. There is always a loophole somewhere. FIND IT

Well just to defend myself,  I didnt beat anyone.  Especially not a women.  And especially not any children.

I am not barred from possesing firearms in the State of Rhode Island since the only people who cant own guns are people convicted of a violent crime or a felony (under State law my crime is not considered a crime of violence or a felony).  I can still legally purchase a firearm in my State.

As far as I can tell I cannot purchase a firearm from an out of State dealer and get it transfered into the State.  Someone correct me if I am wrong.

I have never bought a gun from a dealer so I dont know exactly how the whole process works.

EDIT:  Federal law says "(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. "

So I guess I cant even buy a gun in my own STate!!  

Yeah,  how that has to do with interstate commerce I will never know.

THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.  F THIS COUNTRY AND F U ALL.

Quoted: Quoted: I think something isn’t being said here. If you beat your kids or wife you don’t need to have a gun in the house anyway . If this is a misunderstanding buy the cops than it sucks to be you. Try getting on an airplane if your name is on the no-fly list. Even if your not the one they are talking about you still don’t fly that day. Its not fair but it happens all the time. The law is what you make of it. There is always a loophole somewhere. FIND IT Well just to defend myself,  I didnt beat anyone.  Especially not a women.  And especially not any children. I am not barred from possesing firearms in the State of Rhode Island since the only people who cant own guns are people convicted of a violent crime or a felony (under State law my crime is not considered a crime of violence or a felony).  I can still legally purchase a firearm in my State. As far as I can tell I cannot purchase a firearm from an out of State dealer and get it transfered into the State.  Someone correct me if I am wrong. I have never bought a gun from a dealer so I dont know exactly how the whole process works. EDIT:  Federal law says "(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. " So I guess I cant even buy a gun in my own STate!!   Yeah,  how that has to do with interstate commerce I will never know. THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.  F THIS COUNTRY AND F U ALL.

Nice.

Which government do you prefer? As far as I can tell, you're looking for that most elusive of Freedoms:  Freedom from responsibility.  

I've done a bit of traveling and you can find that freedom in Port au Prince or Mogadishu.  As an 'Implement of War,' I'm sure they wouldn't put you in a dress and pass you around like a party favor.  

Good luck with your well thought out plan.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think something isn’t being said here. If you beat your kids or wife you don’t need to have a gun in the house anyway . If this is a misunderstanding buy the cops than it sucks to be you. Try getting on an airplane if your name is on the no-fly list. Even if your not the one they are talking about you still don’t fly that day. Its not fair but it happens all the time. The law is what you make of it. There is always a loophole somewhere. FIND IT Well just to defend myself,  I didnt beat anyone.  Especially not a women.  And especially not any children. I am not barred from possesing firearms in the State of Rhode Island since the only people who cant own guns are people convicted of a violent crime or a felony (under State law my crime is not considered a crime of violence or a felony).  I can still legally purchase a firearm in my State. As far as I can tell I cannot purchase a firearm from an out of State dealer and get it transfered into the State.  Someone correct me if I am wrong. I have never bought a gun from a dealer so I dont know exactly how the whole process works. EDIT:  Federal law says "(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. " So I guess I cant even buy a gun in my own STate!!   Yeah,  how that has to do with interstate commerce I will never know. THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.  F THIS COUNTRY AND F U ALL. Nice. Which government do you prefer? As far as I can tell, you're looking for that most elusive of Freedoms:  Freedom from responsibility.   I've done a bit of traveling and you can find that freedom in Port au Prince or Mogadishu.  As an 'Implement of War,' I'm sure they wouldn't put you in a dress and pass you around like a party favor.   Good luck with your well thought out plan.

How about the government following the rules?

If society doesnt want people like me from possesing firearms,  then that is a State matter.  The federal government does not have the power to limit my right to posses arms.  Neither does the State have the right technically if I cite the 2nd Amendment.  But if they could limit myr ight to posses arms,  only the State is given the pwoer to do so under the United States Constitution.

As the founding fathers said.  The only people who should give up their right to keep and bear arms are people who rebel against the Constitution.  The rest of the criminals goto the penitentary (their words not mine,  I just support that opinion).

I think you just lack an education on how the government is supposed to work.  So how about not butting in next time and save yourself the embaressment.


BTW I wouldnt want to live in Somalia. There are countries I would live in besides the United States-- Somalia isnt one of them.

Have you contacted  your county clerk? If not I would go there and explain the situation and  ask them what your rights are concerning  buying or owning a gun.  The easiest way to do it is go and apply for a 5 year nic’s check. That will tell you weather you can or cannot purchase a gun. If you can buy one than it goes without saying that you can own one.  Check that to be sure but it seems that to me if you pass a nics check you’re ok. It’s hard to say not knowing what the basis of the domestic violence charge is about. Try those things before you go and get in a firefight with the government.  Remember if you have people on your side you will go far, you can’t do it alone. You would have to agree that if a person beats a women or child that he shouldn’t own a firearm. In your case it sounds like your name is on the no fly list even though you’re not a terrorist. Good luck Bryon

I think you just lack an education on how the government is supposed to work. So how about not butting in next time and save yourself the embaressment.

When discussing someone else's education or lack thereof, it's almost vitally important to properly spell the word "embarrassment."

That's some funny stuff.

I can't believe it, you finally said something that is pretty close to reality and I almost agarre with it.

If society doesnt want people like me from possesing firearms, then that is a State matter. The federal government does not have the power to limit my right to posses arms. Neither does the State have the right technically if I cite the 2nd Amendment. But if they could limit myr ight to posses arms, only the State is given the pwoer to do so under the United States Constitution.

Quoted: Quoted: I think something isn’t being said here. If you beat your kids or wife you don’t need to have a gun in the house anyway . If this is a misunderstanding buy the cops than it sucks to be you. Try getting on an airplane if your name is on the no-fly list. Even if your not the one they are talking about you still don’t fly that day. Its not fair but it happens all the time. The law is what you make of it. There is always a loophole somewhere. FIND IT Well just to defend myself,  I didnt beat anyone.  Especially not a women.  And especially not any children. I am not barred from possesing firearms in the State of Rhode Island since the only people who cant own guns are people convicted of a violent crime or a felony (under State law my crime is not considered a crime of violence or a felony).  I can still legally purchase a firearm in my State. As far as I can tell I cannot purchase a firearm from an out of State dealer and get it transfered into the State.  Someone correct me if I am wrong. I have never bought a gun from a dealer so I dont know exactly how the whole process works. EDIT:  Federal law says "(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. " So I guess I cant even buy a gun in my own STate!!   Yeah,  how that has to do with interstate commerce I will never know. THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.  F THIS COUNTRY AND F U ALL.

Nice attitude.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think something isn’t being said here. If you beat your kids or wife you don’t need to have a gun in the house anyway . If this is a misunderstanding buy the cops than it sucks to be you. Try getting on an airplane if your name is on the no-fly list. Even if your not the one they are talking about you still don’t fly that day. Its not fair but it happens all the time. The law is what you make of it. There is always a loophole somewhere. FIND IT Well just to defend myself,  I didnt beat anyone.  Especially not a women.  And especially not any children. I am not barred from possesing firearms in the State of Rhode Island since the only people who cant own guns are people convicted of a violent crime or a felony (under State law my crime is not considered a crime of violence or a felony).  I can still legally purchase a firearm in my State. As far as I can tell I cannot purchase a firearm from an out of State dealer and get it transfered into the State.  Someone correct me if I am wrong. I have never bought a gun from a dealer so I dont know exactly how the whole process works. EDIT:  Federal law says "(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. " So I guess I cant even buy a gun in my own STate!!   Yeah,  how that has to do with interstate commerce I will never know. THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.  F THIS COUNTRY AND F U ALL. Nice. Which government do you prefer? As far as I can tell, you're looking for that most elusive of Freedoms:  Freedom from responsibility.   I've done a bit of traveling and you can find that freedom in Port au Prince or Mogadishu.  As an 'Implement of War,' I'm sure they wouldn't put you in a dress and pass you around like a party favor.   Good luck with your well thought out plan. How about the government following the rules? If society doesnt want people like me from possesing firearms,  then that is a State matter.  The federal government does not have the power to limit my right to posses arms.  Neither does the State have the right technically if I cite the 2nd Amendment.  But if they could limit myr ight to posses arms,  only the State is given the pwoer to do so under the United States Constitution. As the founding fathers said.  The only people who should give up their right to keep and bear arms are people who rebel against the Constitution.  The rest of the criminals goto the penitentary (their words not mine,  I just support that opinion). I think you just lack an education on how the government is supposed to work.  So how about not butting in next time and save yourself the embaressment. BTW I wouldnt want to live in Somalia. There are countries I would live in besides the United States-- Somalia isnt one of them.

If you know so much about how government is suppose to work, why are you asking questions here?

Well, I debated stepping in to this... I lost ;) so here goes.

While I don't agree with the manner in which Mr. OfWar lays out his argument, and many of his points need drastic clarification, reading his arguement (and reading into it some pretty obvious clarifications that he didn't make himself) from a non-hostile point of view, I have to say that I agree with the basic gist of what he is saying.

The US Congress has no authority to pass any laws other than what is needed to carry out the powers granted to the govenment by the constitution.

Regarless of wether you or I agree that disarming convicted felons is needed or not, Congress was never given the authority to do so.
Even if you manage to finagle the Interstate commerce clause into it, it's still over ruled by the 2nd ammendment.

Regardless of whether you or I agree that DV offenders should be stripped of rights, neither the US gov. nor the States themselves have the authority to do so (via 14th ammendment).

Current law, case law, and precendent should mean diddley squat if/when they conflict with the Constitution.


Do I think he'll get anywhere with his case?
Not likely, our country was fucked before most of us were born...

I don't condone the hostility that he's showing to other member here, but I can certainly understand where it comes from as this is one place where one could assume to find people who understand his frustration of having his rights illegaly stripped away.
guess not...

Actually, it says that if the balance of powers (ie the executive and judicial branches) does not redress the alleged wrong by Congress, it is up to the people to elect better Congressmen. Here's a slogan: "Be a rebel -- Vote!"

Isn't it a little difficult for convicted felons to vote for better Representatives?

Not that I'm particularly sympathetic to DVers or Ex-cons... It's my my belief that we should keep them locked up, or dispose of them, if they continue to be a threat to society.
We put our animals to sleep regularly, I think we can agree to it being the least cruel method, and if we just did it more often it could hardly be considered unusual

I don't know exactly what ImplementOfWar did to put his gun rights in jeopardy.

But I do know, that the courts and government have been working hard to make

everything that they can, be a crime that will take your gun rights away.

You, "I don't do anything wrong crowd", your days are numbered.

I have a son that got his gun rights taken away for ten years for a non-violent teenage

indiscretion that had "nothing" to do with guns.

He is now serving his country in the ARMY.

Give ImplementOfWar a break. His pursuit to sue the government may be futile,

but his outrage is not.


GM

While I don't agree with the manner in which Mr. OfWar lays out his argument, and many of his points need drastic clarification, reading his arguement (and reading into it some pretty obvious clarifications that he didn't make himself) from a non-hostile point of view, I have to say that I agree with the basic gist of what he is saying.

Most of us do.

Most of us also realize going about it in an asshat manner doesnt help our cause.  Some of the people that do the most damage to gun rights in this country are those on "our" side.

One has to be a real tool to make a pro gun argument here and have his butt handed to him like this guy.  "Implement of War?"  Right...