Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #481
Why can the Fed. Gov. prohibit ownership of an assault rifle manufactured after 1986 through legislation, but needs a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol?
Why?
Why?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, pot or alcohol prohibition can't be accomplished by statutes or through legislation, requiring a constitutional amendment, but gun prohibition can? You didn't answer why.Because that can be accomplished through legislation, and has. You can't buy automatic weapons or nuclear missiles.
I agree with this part.From Libertarian viewpoint, drug ABUSE is a medical/educational problem. Most of us DO draw distinctions for different drugs depending on the risks and the dangers. And clearly -- Pot -- is worthy of AT LEAST state experimentation and decriminalization. It's being PROVEN right now -- in various states that LParty was never really for "uncontrolled legalization" of anything. Markets need boundaries and law to enhance commerce. And MANY states are finding this "regulation" very challenging. But it's no where NEAR the chaos and anarchy that LP opponents tried to make it out to be.
I understand how drugs are regulated. What I don't understand is how Congress can prohibit the sale of certain types of firearms, when the 2A SPECIFICALLY prohibits it. Wouldn't that be a states issue? Alcohol needed a Constitutional Amendment to be prohibited. Why is that different? No one can explain.Guns are an enumerated right and drugs is a reserved right. Except that drugs regulation has been determined to be Constitutional and nullifies the "reserved" right.
It's a bureaucratic policy WHICH drugs end up on WHICH list of classification. Doesn't even NEED Congressional approval really. Just a long involved process to change the classification.
I agree with this part.From Libertarian viewpoint, drug ABUSE is a medical/educational problem. Most of us DO draw distinctions for different drugs depending on the risks and the dangers. And clearly -- Pot -- is worthy of AT LEAST state experimentation and decriminalization. It's being PROVEN right now -- in various states that LParty was never really for "uncontrolled legalization" of anything. Markets need boundaries and law to enhance commerce. And MANY states are finding this "regulation" very challenging. But it's no where NEAR the chaos and anarchy that LP opponents tried to make it out to be.
I understand how drugs are regulated. What I don't understand is how Congress can prohibit the sale of certain types of firearms, when the 2A SPECIFICALLY prohibits it. Wouldn't that be a states issue? Alcohol needed a Constitutional Amendment to be prohibited. Why is that different? No one can explain.Guns are an enumerated right and drugs is a reserved right. Except that drugs regulation has been determined to be Constitutional and nullifies the "reserved" right.
It's a bureaucratic policy WHICH drugs end up on WHICH list of classification. Doesn't even NEED Congressional approval really. Just a long involved process to change the classification.
Which leads me to the point. The Federal Government does lots of things it is not supposed to do. Most of that bullshit started with the commie, FDR.
The States stand by and willfully let it happen.
I agree with this part.From Libertarian viewpoint, drug ABUSE is a medical/educational problem. Most of us DO draw distinctions for different drugs depending on the risks and the dangers. And clearly -- Pot -- is worthy of AT LEAST state experimentation and decriminalization. It's being PROVEN right now -- in various states that LParty was never really for "uncontrolled legalization" of anything. Markets need boundaries and law to enhance commerce. And MANY states are finding this "regulation" very challenging. But it's no where NEAR the chaos and anarchy that LP opponents tried to make it out to be.
I understand how drugs are regulated. What I don't understand is how Congress can prohibit the sale of certain types of firearms, when the 2A SPECIFICALLY prohibits it. Wouldn't that be a states issue? Alcohol needed a Constitutional Amendment to be prohibited. Why is that different? No one can explain.Guns are an enumerated right and drugs is a reserved right. Except that drugs regulation has been determined to be Constitutional and nullifies the "reserved" right.
It's a bureaucratic policy WHICH drugs end up on WHICH list of classification. Doesn't even NEED Congressional approval really. Just a long involved process to change the classification.
Which leads me to the point. The Federal Government does lots of things it is not supposed to do. Most of that bullshit started with the commie, FDR.
The States stand by and willfully let it happen.
Wrong. SCOTUS has already decided in Heller v DC on the 2nd Amendment, and just refused a challenge to it. Scalia wrote the majority decision, of which the citizens have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, he also stuck with his originalist bent in citing the states have the absolute right to ban certain types of weapons, including military style rifles and semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, or any weapons the define as unusual. The court also ruled that states can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons or open carrying of weapons in public.
Where did you get your law degree?
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't count.
And you have no place else to appeal that interpretation.
Apparently, I got my law degree at a better school than you.Wrong. SCOTUS has already decided in Heller v DC on the 2nd Amendment, and just refused a challenge to it. Scalia wrote the majority decision, of which the citizens have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, he also stuck with his originalist bent in citing the states have the absolute right to ban certain types of weapons, including military style rifles and semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, or any weapons the define as unusual. The court also ruled that states can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons or open carrying of weapons in public.
Where did you get your law degree?
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't count.
And you have no place else to appeal that interpretation.