The Right To Bear Arms

[Lesh]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

 

[Lesh]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

 

[Rigby5]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

Not at all.
The commerce clause was actually ONLY about preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce.
The whole point of the federal government was ONLY to do that which states could not do.
And while states can't prevent another state from screwing with interstate commerce, clearly not only can states easily deal with local state legislation to moderate weapons,but it HAS to be done on a state level because what weapons needed in NYC are likely going to be different than what weapons are needed in Alaska or Louisiana.
In no way could anyone possibly justify any federal weapons legislation at all, in any way.

Linguistically everything could effect interstate commerce, but clearly the 10 amendment says that federal jurisdiction can not be inferred indirectly, but must be expressly allocated to federal jurisdiction in a separate article in the constitution.
It is not at all legal to infer from the commerce clause.
The 9th amendment was clear that weapons were to be totally under state, local, and individual jurisdiction.

 

[Rigby5]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

Except that the "well regulated militia" means that the whole country needs all of its adults to be well practiced in firearms.
They were even considering federal legislation criminalizing households that did not have arms.

Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all, all law enforcement had to be local, and there was almost no standing military because they wanted to rely on "citizens soldiers" instead of paid mercenaries.

It would be very irrational to include an amendment in the list of restriction on the federal government that was intended to prevent the federal government from disarming its National Guard. But that is essentially what you are claiming. So what if the 2nd amendment were only referring to the militia, (which I disagree with), because the militia clearly were ever able bodied person, and were for defense of state, city, home, and person, as well as country.
It hardly matters why the restriction on any federal weapons laws is there. We should all agree it is there, so then there can not legally be any federal weapons law, nor should there ever have been any, because there has never been any need. Each state should have their own weapons law, as they feel appropriate for their needs. Needs obviously are going to vary from state to state.

 

[Lesh]

Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,

And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia.

That no longer is true

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

It does not matter how many times your lie about this, you're still lying.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

[danielpalos]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[hadit]

It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually the commerce clause would apply

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

I still think that it was a typo that was never corrected. Our Founding Fathers wanted to make hunting bears more sporting so they actually meant The People have a right to keep and Arm Bears. Imagine the excitement on opening bear season.

 

[Auld Phart]

Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,

And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia.

That no longer is true

And sa very small standing Army.

we had a standing army at that time?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,

And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia.

That no longer is true

And sa very small standing Army.

we had a standing army at that time?

We did. It was capped at a standing army of 75,000 not including the Navy which had no limits. It stayed that way until the Civil War. By 1898, that was changed due to the Spanish American War requirements. And in 1917, the State Guards or Militias were changed to the National Guards and could be called up as Federal Troops in preparation for WWI.

 

[hadit]

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

 

[danielpalos]

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

 

[Auld Phart]

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

 

[danielpalos]

A specific limitation on Government.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

 

[Auld Phart]

You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

 

[danielpalos]

The several States are the Union.

That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.

they must be there, by implication. that is all the right wing knows.

they must be there, by implication.

who's 'implication'?

besides yours?

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.

immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?

implication.