Active Users:1162 Time:22/11/2024 03:28:18 PM
"Congress shall make no law..." restricts the STATES? How, exactly? Joel Send a noteboard - 28/12/2012 03:03:19 PM
Just because someone once made a legal argument that it did not (that a court eventually ruled against) does not mean that it was not binding until the court ruled.

The Constitution says that what is not expressly given to the federal government resides with the states and the people. HOWEVER, the Constitution also specifically states certain RIGHTS that are reserved to the people; the states can not act against those rights (including gun ownership).

I understand you don't like the concept of unrestricted gun ownership. I get it. You think there should be some "common sense" (gosh what a slippery term) regulations. OK, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW IT. Don't ignore it. The document is too damn important. It IS more important than 26 people in Connecticut, it is about protecting EVERYONE, and the folk it is protecting us from is our own government (and inherent human foolishness).

It is not a matter of interpretation, but of what the plain text of the document says; it affirms regulations AS regulations. Strict constructionists can not argue otherwise, so which of your principles are you rejecting as personally inconvenient?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1539 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 993 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 922 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 866 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1023 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1177 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 530 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 853 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 860 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 908 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 873 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 924 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 843 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 831 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 893 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 869 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 856 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 880 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 864 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 904 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1069 Views
Court rulings have determined that your Constitutional Rights can be restricted for felony/insanity *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:59:31 PM 559 Views
Activist judges should not make law. - 23/12/2012 02:04:42 PM 880 Views
I agree, but the courts have already ruled that way so we are stuck. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:03:35 PM 526 Views
Then I guess we need the courts to rule gun owners need screening, training and licensing. - 26/12/2012 03:46:05 PM 872 Views
No, if you want to restrict the 2nd (or any other amendment) amend the Constitution - 26/12/2012 07:56:19 PM 842 Views
I do not want to restrict the Second Amendment, only enact the regulations it explictly allows. - 26/12/2012 08:50:09 PM 909 Views
I disagree with your interpretation. The simple EXISTANCE of the BoR makes it binding on the states - 27/12/2012 03:46:17 PM 873 Views
"Congress shall make no law..." restricts the STATES? How, exactly? - 28/12/2012 03:03:19 PM 837 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 796 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 855 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 768 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 933 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 988 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 561 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 808 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 495 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 914 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 716 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 879 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 942 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 891 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 812 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 892 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 813 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 581 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 908 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 882 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 822 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 797 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 783 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 798 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 500 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 791 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 484 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 985 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 781 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 788 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 504 Views

Reply to Message