User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 2:44:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, False, the right (restriction on federal power) had been acknowledged by all previous 2nd amendment cases. Heller was not a change, just further clarification. Heller quoted from Miller, Lopez, Dread Scott, Cruinshank, etc. When it was adopted, the country was concerned that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states. False, this was the case under the original Confederacy, but the argument was debated at the time the constitution was written and rejected. A single federal government is the sole authority over all state Militias. The states do NOT have a right to arm their militias. The southern states were forbidden after the civil war. The States were forbidden, not the people. The actual constitution... "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." .. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" Even if the lobbyists who oppose gun-control regulation actually do endorse the dubious proposition that the Second Amendment was intended to limit the federal power to regulate the civilian use of handguns—that Burger incorrectly accused them of “fraud”—I find it incredible that policy makers in a democratic society have failed to impose more effective regulations on the ownership and use of firearms than they have. False, we live in a constitutional republic, which specifically limits government power. Our "democracy" is not the authoritarian mob rule the communists want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 2:49:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Slavery, prior to the 13th Amendment, was constitutional, however. Gun control is not. The people never granted the US Congress the explicit power to ban possession of firearms. Nor did they ever imply such a power. Since the DC government is a direct creation of and subordinate to the Federal government, it stands to reason that Congress has no authority to delegate power to ban guns that it was never given in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 2:50:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck that traitor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 2:51:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gun control would still be unconstitutional (Federally speaking) even without the 2nd amendment for the same reason slavery was legal (in some States) prior to the 13th amendment. The people never granted the US Congress the explicit power to ban possession of firearms. Nor did they ever imply such a power. Since the DC government is a direct creation of and subordinate to the Federal government, it stands to reason that Congress has no authority to delegate power to ban guns that it was never given in the first place. But 9 out of 9 SCOTUS judges do not. so here we are. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 2:58:44 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. But 9 out of 9 SCOTUS judges do not. so here we are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Gun control would still be unconstitutional (Federally speaking) even without the 2nd amendment for the same reason slavery was legal (in some States) prior to the 13th amendment. The people never granted the US Congress the explicit power to ban possession of firearms. Nor did they ever imply such a power. Since the DC government is a direct creation of and subordinate to the Federal government, it stands to reason that Congress has no authority to delegate power to ban guns that it was never given in the first place. But 9 out of 9 SCOTUS judges do not. so here we are. "To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:01:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Preemptive attack for Roe vs Wade. These people must be purged. There will be no peace or freedom as long as they exist in our society.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:03:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rehnquist, US v Lopez "To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do." Everytime we win a decision, nothing changes. everytime the communists win a decision EVERYTHING changes immediately. Gay marriage being the most recent and obvious example. They were throwing fuckers in jail within weeks for failing to kneel before the progressive gods of the court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:07:05 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Atlantic.... Mother Jones for Intellectuals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:10:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That corporate eminent domain one was a travesty of justice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:12:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and that decision, 5-4 of course, did nothing to wipe the other 10 billion laws and regulations that should have been immediately rendered null and void by that decision. Everytime we win a decision, nothing changes. everytime the communists win a decision EVERYTHING changes immediately. Gay marriage being the most recent and obvious example. They were throwing fuckers in jail within weeks for failing to kneel before the progressive gods of the court. I wish divorces were a commodity we could trade on. Spring Wheat, Pork Bellies, Copper, Divorce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:18:21 PM EDT
[#11]
When you read the stupidity of his arguments you can once again be appalled that such idiots make their way to a high office that affects our liberties.
The idiot suppose to have a law degree but never understood the Bill of Rights. I guess he was absent from class the day it was discussed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:21:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Penn and Teller, of all people, have a great video explaining the meaning of the 2A where they go over the sentence structure in detail etc. People argue that the 2A is contingent on the people being in a militia and being well regulated (the meaning of which has changed); this was not the intention.
The founders were really saying something along the lines of “since armed citizens banding together is the last line of defense for liberty and freedom, there shall never be a law created restricting their ownership of any weapons of war.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:27:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's fascinating that we accept a SCOTUS decision as the final word on on so many important issues when it's frequently proven that the court is full of fucktards, like Stevens. Note that even absent the 2nd, the feds had no authority to regulate firearms. Prior to the FDR era, everyone knew this. In fact, that's why NFA is a tax; in 1934 the operational assumption was that the federal government could only assume the powers listed in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:29:15 PM EDT
[#14]
US Constitution Article I Section 8:
"Congress shall have the power... to Grant letters of Marque and reprisal" US Constitution Amendment II: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Letters of marque and reprisal serve as commissions for private men'o'war and private companies of troops to take military action under the sovereign imprimatur of the United States. In other words, the Constitution was written under the expectation and presumption that privately armed and organized military forces and warships would be available to serve on behalf of the nation in a military capacity. In other words, the ongoing private ownership and commercial availability of stocks of military arms and artillery were presumptive facts to the men writing and ratifying the Constitution. In other words the founders wouldn't give a damn about the AR15, except perhaps to be concerned that it represented the maximum force readily available to the public in most jurisdictions. As to the 2A, that's a bit more tricky to me. Not for the usual reasons. Keeping arms without infringement is clearly an individual right, though we could argue that certain substances with military uses such as poison gas, virulent diseases, and nuclear devices could be and are in fact excluded in the nebulous name of 'public safety.' Bearing arms without infringement on the other hand is a collective right as I see it, albeit one reserved to and dispersed among the people rather than limited to the government. "Well regulated militia" is the clue. You can even throw out "well regulated." Militia implies two things: 1) an ad hoc paramilitary force drawn from the people in response to some emergency, 2) that possesses at least the rudiments of discipline and a chain of command, even by election, ad hoc sua sponte. Without the second element, you've got nothing more than a mob, or a riot, which is the enemy of society rather than its defender. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:29:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gun control would still be unconstitutional (Federally speaking) even without the 2nd amendment for the same reason slavery was legal (in some States) prior to the 13th amendment. The people never granted the US Congress the explicit power to ban possession of firearms. Nor did they ever imply such a power. Since the DC government is a direct creation of and subordinate to the Federal government, it stands to reason that Congress has no authority to delegate power to ban guns that it was never given in the first place. Also, the feds could impose gun control in places like DC and military bases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:32:07 PM EDT
[#16]
I find it incredible that policy makers in a democratic society have failed to impose more effective regulations on the ownership and use of firearms than they have. And apparently, the moron doesn't realize that we are not a democracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:33:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you read the stupidity of his arguments you can once again be appalled that such idiots make their way to a high office that affects our liberties. The idiot suppose to have a law degree but never understood the Bill of Rights. I guess he was absent from class the day it was discussed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:34:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Boils downs to judges who rule with feelings/a vision for the future (a.k.a. activist judges) and rewrite the past to make their point of view fit instead of keeping an eye to the past and trying to see what the original intent of the laws were and how they apply to the case before them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:34:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and that decision, 5-4 of course, did nothing to wipe the other 10 billion laws and regulations that should have been immediately rendered null and void by that decision. Everytime we win a decision, nothing changes. everytime the communists win a decision EVERYTHING changes immediately. Gay marriage being the most recent and obvious example. They were throwing fuckers in jail within weeks for failing to kneel before the progressive gods of the court. Large quantities of 5.56 may figure in the resolution of all this. Or perhaps just train rides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:34:46 PM EDT
[#20]
I trimmed this section to clarify his language:
Quote HistoryEven if the Second Amendment was intended to limit the federal power to regulate the civilian use of handguns, I find it incredible that policy makers in a democratic society have failed to impose more effective regulations on the ownership and use of firearms than they have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:34:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you honestly care about gay marriage? As a long married guy I am amused as hell by the concept that gays can now enjoy married bliss. Welcome to the party, pals and gals. I wish divorces were a commodity we could trade on. Spring Wheat, Pork Bellies, Copper, Divorce. Aside from the completely unconstitutionality of the decision, society sanctions marriage because of children. We were told fathers were optional in raising kids, which has given us 2 generations of violent bastards. How many forcibly transgendered children will society be responsible for in the upcoming decades. YOu like gay marriage? good for you. Go get a law passed. gay marriage, its so popular, SCOTUS had to stop democratically elected legislatures from banning it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:36:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a very inconvenient truth that no leftist I have ever discussed the issue with can adequately address. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:37:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you honestly care about gay marriage? As a long married guy I am amused as hell by the concept that gays can now enjoy married bliss. Welcome to the party, pals and gals. I wish divorces were a commodity we could trade on. Spring Wheat, Pork Bellies, Copper, Divorce. However, the courts decided the will of the people was null and void. I despise them for that. I now wish I voted AGAINST gay marriage. That, and the BAKE THE CAKE approach. I do not find BAKE THE CAKE ammusing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:38:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, nothing but a huge bleating statist vagina. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:40:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
gay marriage, its so popular, SCOTUS had to stop democratically elected legislatures from banning it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:42:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I trimmed this section to clarify his language: I'll admit I'm surprised to see an SC justice so clearly attacking the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend, in preference to mob rule. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I trimmed this section to clarify his language: Even if the Second Amendment was intended to limit the federal power to regulate the civilian use of handguns, I find it incredible that policy makers in a democratic society have failed to impose more effective regulations on the ownership and use of firearms than they have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:42:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show me where else in the BoR "the People" is taken to mean "an agency of the State". I'm sure he was probably looking to the constitution of the Soviet Union for inspiration, where "the People" is used interchangeably with "the State". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:42:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The people of CA (!!) in 08 voted against gay marriage, courts had to impose their will on that also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 3:44:51 PM EDT
[#29]
I am the malitia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:36:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, yes. Aside from the completely unconstitutionality of the decision, society sanctions marriage because of children. We were told fathers were optional in raising kids, which has given us 2 generations of violent bastards. How many forcibly transgendered children will society be responsible for in the upcoming decades. YOu like gay marriage? good for you. Go get a law passed. gay marriage, its so popular, SCOTUS had to stop democratically elected legislatures from banning it. If marriage is more than the establishment of legitimate paternity of potential offspring, then what is it? I would argue that marriage is a socially stabilizing force. Something that is a form of commitment and to a degree requires personal restraint. Most of the resistance I see to gay marriage is that at the end of the day many will never see a gay couple as legitimate in any form, let alone "married" or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:38:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to love a court declaring a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The people of CA (!!) in 08 voted against gay marriage, courts had to impose their will on that also.  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:40:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Its not about legitimacy of parenting.
its about raising successful and beneficial offspring. Society thrives off of good children and is corroded off of worthless shits. As a whole, you need a mother and a father to raise a good kid, statistically speaking. a gay couple cannot do this. So, while they are free to go do whatever the fuck they feel like, we as a society should not sanction a marriage that is incapable of providing the requisite support children need. You have butch lesbians chemically castrating 8 year old boys now. Thanks gay marriage. You're awesome! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:44:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heard him on NPR the other day. He really hates Trump and all the conservative judges he's appointing. He sounds like a typical left wing commie statist swamp dweller. Commie Socialist Does your party, the communist party _____? Start calling a spade, a spade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:48:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, yes. Aside from the completely unconstitutionality of the decision, society sanctions marriage because of children. We were told fathers were optional in raising kids, which has given us 2 generations of violent bastards. How many forcibly transgendered children will society be responsible for in the upcoming decades. YOu like gay marriage? good for you. Go get a law passed. gay marriage, its so popular, SCOTUS had to stop democratically elected legislatures from banning it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:49:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Heller never established scrutiny. The dissenters mocked them for it knowing they didn’t have the balls.
It was an okay decision, but try telling someone in a ban state how awesome it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:50:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gay marriage is physically incapable of producing fatherless children so... by the logic expressed in red, shouldn't you be MORE in favor of it than traditional marriage? They would never admit that in public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:50:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Wasn’t it Hamilton in Federalist 29 that supposes that the inconvenience of organizing the militia makes it’s maintenance unrealistic and therefore, at the very least the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be maintained? Aren’t the people the militia? Doesn’t the random dispersal of arms among the people give it the best chance at organizing a resistance?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:52:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's fascinating that we accept a SCOTUS decision as the final word on on so many important issues when it's frequently proven that the court is full of fucktards, like Stevens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:52:17 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its not about legitimacy of parenting. its about raising successful and beneficial offspring. Society thrives off of good children and is corroded off of worthless shits. As a whole, you need a mother and a father to raise a good kid, statistically speaking. a gay couple cannot do this. So, while they are free to go do whatever the fuck they feel like, we as a society should not sanction a marriage that is incapable of providing the requisite support children need. You have butch lesbians chemically castrating 8 year old boys now. Thanks gay marriage. You're awesome! Gimme a break. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:53:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree that a traditional nuclear family gives kids the best chance of success in this country. But butch lesbians castrating on a whim? Gimme a break. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:54:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Much of the pressing for gay marriage in private was so they could adopt without prejudice and that getting custody from previous heterosexual relationships. They would never admit that in public. But they still didn't make those adopted children fatherless. They were already fatherless. It just seems like a bit of a red herring, unless we're arguing that there's some kind of shortage of children to be adopted out. Children that would have been adopted but for all the bull dykes being given first dibs at the adoption agencies. I doubt this is the case... but I don't know much about the adoption system. So maybe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:55:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryThat's fucked up, but I've got bad news for you if you think it's just gay adoptive parents doing dumb shit like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:56:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean, ok sure. I'll buy that. But they still didn't make those adopted children fatherless. They were already fatherless. It just seems like a bit of a red herring, unless we're arguing that there's some kind of shortage of children to be adopted out. Children that would have been adopted but for all the bull dykes being given first dibs at the adoption agencies. I doubt this is the case... but I don't know much about the adoption system. So maybe? gay parent adoption is tres chic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:57:32 PM EDT
[#44]
Stevens is a moron. Reading his opinions in con law class pained me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:58:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's fucked up, but I've got bad news for you if you think it's just gay adoptive parents doing dumb shit like that. And the only reason that kids aren't being yanked out of their homes for child abuse is because of the same gay lobby that demanded that everyone bake their cake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:59:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryLovely. A case of child abuse.
I hardly see that, though, as a tsunami of social chaos. ETA: OP, sorry about the derail. Hopefully Stevens will croak on his feet and fall on Ginsberg, crushing her flat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 4:59:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Care to look at percentages of families that happens to comparing normal couples to gay. If its 100 times more likely do we ignore it with an autistically shrieked "STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO IT TOOOOO!@@!#@" And the only reason that kids aren't being yanked out of their homes for child abuse is because of the same gay lobby that demanded that everyone bake their cake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 5:01:10 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure. Do you have such statistics available? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 5:05:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you think ANYONE is going to keep that statistically?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2019 5:06:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. 1 and 3-10 protect people from the state, but 2 somehow gives rights to the state. Because..the state needs protection..from...the state? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Show me where else in the BoR "the People" is taken to mean "an agency of the State". Because..the state needs protection..from...the state? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
