The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[TheCrusader]

I already told you, it flows from the commerce and necessary and proper clauses. See, that would make total sense if you actually understood how these parts of the constitution work. Well--maybe that's a bit unfair. I don't think anyone fully understands how the commerce clause works. Nevertheless, you're operating in an expanse of mindless and willful ignorance and can't even begin to scratch the surface.

By that logic, it is difficult to imagine any power that the federal government could not claim, by some connection to the Commerce Clause; and the Tenth Amendment would be rendered meaningless. That the Tenth Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights would seem to indicate that the great men who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the Commerce Clause to be used as such a general catch-all for any power that the federal government wanted to claim.

And there's also the fact that the acquisition, keeping, and bearing of arms isn't commerce among the several states. No more than a horse is a fish.

Really? So buying a car isn't commerce between states? OH BUT IT IS. IDIOT.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Really? So buying a car isn't commerce between states? OH BUT IT IS. IDIOT.

Notice how quickly the liberals change the subject from owning or buying a gun, to buying a car, in hopes someone will be fooled into thinking they are the same?

 

[TheCrusader]

Really? So buying a car isn't commerce between states? OH BUT IT IS. IDIOT.

Notice how quickly the liberals change the subject from owning or buying a gun, to buying a car, in hopes someone will be fooled into thinking they are the same?

You're an idiot, the argument is they are not both covered by Interstate Commerce.

So are they or aren't they both covered by interstate commerce?

 

[Little-Acorn]

You're an idiot, the argument is they are not both covered by Interstate Commerce.

So are they are aren't they both covered by interstate commerce?

Notice how quickly the liberals descend into babbling incoherency when their machinations are exposed?

 

[SwimExpert]

I already told you, it flows from the commerce and necessary and proper clauses. See, that would make total sense if you actually understood how these parts of the constitution work. Well--maybe that's a bit unfair. I don't think anyone fully understands how the commerce clause works. Nevertheless, you're operating in an expanse of mindless and willful ignorance and can't even begin to scratch the surface.

By that logic, it is difficult to imagine any power that the federal government could not claim, by some connection to the Commerce Clause; and the Tenth Amendment would be rendered meaningless. That the Tenth Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights would seem to indicate that the great men who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the Commerce Clause to be used as such a general catch-all for any power that the federal government wanted to claim.

It is true that the commerce clause touches many things, and that the necessary and proper clause afford much creativity to the government as to how it will go about regulating such things. Nonetheless, limitations do exist and the courts have frequently found fault in statutes for going beyond the power inherent to the commerce clause.

As for the 10th amendment, just don't go there. Don't even bother, otherwise I'll have to try to think up 10 different novel ways to call you a fucking retarded shit-for-brains idiot, and I don't think I've consumed enough calories this week to pull that off well.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's called the commerce clause. How many times does it have to be said for you to get it through your thick skull?

Once little swimexpert is carefully ignoring previous posts that have already debunked his wishful thinking.

He seems to do that quite a lot.

I disregard stupidity regardless of multiplicity, if that's what you mean.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

What does it say after that?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

If the founders had wanted to make gun rights absolute they could have written it as such

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD
They did not

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

 

[frigidweirdo]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

If the founders had wanted to make gun rights absolute they could have written it as such

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD
They did not

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

If the founders had wanted to make gun rights absolute they could have written it as such

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD
They did not

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Criminals lose their rights through due process.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is true that the commerce clause touches many things, and that the necessary and proper clause afford much creativity to the government as to how it will go about regulating such things. Nonetheless, limitations do exist and the courts have frequently found fault in statutes for going beyond the power inherent to the commerce clause.

As for the 10th amendment, just don't go there. Don't even bother, otherwise I'll have to try to think up 10 different novel ways to call you a fucking retarded shit-for-brains idiot, and I don't think I've consumed enough calories this week to pull that off well.

Do your best, then, you Œdipus-complex-fulfilling male offspring of a female dog. The foulest insult you can devise to throw at me will have no impact on me at all, nor will it make your own position even the slightest bit less vapid.

You may not like the Tenth Amendment, you may not agree with it, you may not wish for it to be obeyed; but the fact remains that it was properly ratified, it is part of the Constitution, and it carries as much legal weight and authority as any other part of the Constitution. And not only by its content, but by its very existence, it totally disproves your position. It proves that the Constitution was intended only to grant very limited and specific powers to the federal government, and that the federal government was not to be allowed to exercise any powers not so granted. And it proves that the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause were not intended to be vague catch-all excuses for the federal government to seize powers not explicitly delegated thereto.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

I don't. Not once one has completed his sentence, anyway. I believe that once a convicted criminal has “paid his debt to society”, that he ought to be restored to his full rights, including his right to keep and bear arms.

If a person has achieved such a level of criminality that he cannot ever be trusted with such rights, then the only proper solution is to permanently remove him from society.

And that's one area where our society has gone soft, much to our own detriment. At the time the Constitution was written, the very worst criminals, anyone who had proven that he could not be trusted with freedom, usually served his sentence at the end of a rope, and was thereafter left in such a condition as to render completely moot any discussion as to whether he should be allowed to possess arms after that point.

 

[Rustic]

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

I don't. Not once one has completed his sentence, anyway. I believe that once a convicted criminal has “paid his debt to society”, that he ought to be restored to his full rights, including his right to keep and bear arms.

If a person has achieved such a level of criminality that he cannot ever be trusted with such rights, then the only proper solution is to permanently remove him from society.

And that's one area where our society has gone soft,much to our own detriment. At the time the Constitution was written, the very worst criminals, anyone who had proven that he could not be trusted with freedom, usually served his sentence at the end of a rope, and was thereafter left in such a condition as to render completely moot any discussion as to whether he should be allowed to possess arms after that point.

This is true, Second Amendment along with the tenth is our only protection from obtuse and oppressive federal government.
Political correctness cannot be seen as any form of morality and/or ethics.
It's just a tool of the control freaks

 

[Centinel]

Gun control legislation criminalizes the possession of certain firearms by certain people. That's what gun control legislation is.

No, gun control legislation takes many forms. For example a ban strictly on manufacturing certain weapons would still be gun control legislation.

None of congress' enumerated powers would allow them to enact such a law.

It's called the commerce clause. How many times does it have to be said for you to get it through your thick skull?

Manufacturing a thing is not commerce among the states.

 

[Centinel]

I already told you, it flows from the commerce and necessary and proper clauses. See, that would make total sense if you actually understood how these parts of the constitution work. Well--maybe that's a bit unfair. I don't think anyone fully understands how the commerce clause works. Nevertheless, you're operating in an expanse of mindless and willful ignorance and can't even begin to scratch the surface.

By that logic, it is difficult to imagine any power that the federal government could not claim, by some connection to the Commerce Clause; and the Tenth Amendment would be rendered meaningless. That the Tenth Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights would seem to indicate that the great men who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the Commerce Clause to be used as such a general catch-all for any power that the federal government wanted to claim.

And there's also the fact that the acquisition, keeping, and bearing of arms isn't commerce among the several states. No more than a horse is a fish.

Really? So buying a car isn't commerce between states? OH BUT IT IS. IDIOT.

The importation of a car into a state from another state is commerce among the states. Buying a car from a local dealership is not commerce among the states.

 

[SwimExpert]

Gun control legislation criminalizes the possession of certain firearms by certain people. That's what gun control legislation is.

No, gun control legislation takes many forms. For example a ban strictly on manufacturing certain weapons would still be gun control legislation.

None of congress' enumerated powers would allow them to enact such a law.

It's called the commerce clause. How many times does it have to be said for you to get it through your thick skull?

Manufacturing a thing is not commerce among the states.

Your middle school level ignorance does not constitute an argument. Like I said, you need to go get educated on the subject. You're making an ass out of yourself.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is true that the commerce clause touches many things, and that the necessary and proper clause afford much creativity to the government as to how it will go about regulating such things. Nonetheless, limitations do exist and the courts have frequently found fault in statutes for going beyond the power inherent to the commerce clause.

As for the 10th amendment, just don't go there. Don't even bother, otherwise I'll have to try to think up 10 different novel ways to call you a fucking retarded shit-for-brains idiot, and I don't think I've consumed enough calories this week to pull that off well.

Do your best, then, you Œdipus-complex-fulfilling male offspring of a female dog. The foulest insult you can devise to throw at me will have no impact on me at all, nor will it make your own position even the slightest bit less vapid.

You may not like the Tenth Amendment, you may not agree with it, you may not wish for it to be obeyed; but the fact remains that it was properly ratified, it is part of the Constitution, and it carries as much legal weight and authority as any other part of the Constitution. And not only by its content, but by its very existence, it totally disproves your position. It proves that the Constitution was intended only to grant very limited and specific powers to the federal government, and that the federal government was not to be allowed to exercise any powers not so granted. And it proves that the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause were not intended to be vague catch-all excuses for the federal government to seize powers not explicitly delegated thereto.

Oh, tenthers are a special kind of stupid, just below the rank of birther. This has nothing to do with the tenth amendment. Nothing at all. This is an especially stupid invocation of tentherism. You're trying to use the 10th amendment to claim that Congress does not have its own enumerated power.

 

[SwimExpert]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I know, I know

If the founders had wanted to make gun rights absolute they could have written it as such

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD
They did not

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on.
Oxford Dictionary

So, taking guns away from criminals would be infringing. Why do pro-gun people support taking guns away from criminals?

Criminals lose their rights through due process.

So? How do you justify "shall not infringe" without any caveats whatsoever, against your position? Eh?

See, even you admit that the words of the constitution cannot be read within an arena of low level thought.

 

[Slyhunter]

It's called the commerce clause. How many times does it have to be said for you to get it through your thick skull?

Once little swimexpert is carefully ignoring previous posts that have already debunked his wishful thinking.

I don't even have to read the argument to know how dumb you are. The FEDs can regulate commerce. If a gun were made with materials only within that state, and sold only to people within that state, who would NEVER transport them outside that state.

THEN and ONLY THEN would the Feds not have a say in firearms.

Even then they would have to violate the second amendment in order to restrict gun sales.

 

[Slyhunter]

Really? So buying a car isn't commerce between states? OH BUT IT IS. IDIOT.

Notice how quickly the liberals change the subject from owning or buying a gun, to buying a car, in hopes someone will be fooled into thinking they are the same?

You're an idiot, the argument is they are not both covered by Interstate Commerce.

So are they or aren't they both covered by interstate commerce?

ok, they are covered by interstate commerce.
However, being covered by interstate commerce doesn't give them the right to violate the second amendment.