A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[OKTexas]

[

Let me add this: there has been an emerging consensus on the right here at USMB that even background checks for gun purchases are not acceptable.

?

identify the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO - by article, section, and clause which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks


Identify the historical document which quotes Patrick Henry - or any founding Father - stating that the intent of the Commerce clause was to allow federal scumbags to regulate the possession of firearms

.

Cite in any of those sources that background checks are not authorized.

‘But that’s not in the Constitution’ is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’ The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied.

You might want to read the 10th Amendment, it says very plainly that the Constitution only contains enumerated powers, all others are reserved to the states or the people. That would include those pesky nonexistent implied powers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are a tad confused here, if something is a right I have no responsibility to fulfill in exercising that right. That should help you define the difference between a right and a token from the government to placate the idiots.

Then you do not believe we actually have rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms.

That's me, the guy that doesn't believe I have rights because I refuse to acknowledge the government's ability to regulate my rights.

The government has the authority to exercise its power to protect the safety and security of the people, even if it means that the government must impose limits on rights explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.

That is one of the reasons we have a judiciary - to arbitrate disputes that might arise when such conflicting interests collide.

 

[Intense]

Nah you showed you are a racist from the trevor martin threads.
Um not really sure what that whine about elitists is about. It is quite evident you have no clue about this subject. You just recite the 2nd as if thats all that matters. No case law or court opinion on the matter.
You'd rather whine about liberals and elites doing things. I dont care about your god or your guns. Pass the proper checks and buy whatever gun you want.

****.

"Trevor Martin"? You can't even remember his name! I'll bet if he'd been WHITE, you'd be able to remember, you RACIST!!

******* spare me. All that was proven in the TRAYVON Martin threads was what I just said: You think "racist" means "something I call people I don't like". And to leftist fuckstains like you, "not a racist" requires one to be a galloping, flaming bigot to achieve.

Hang it up, shitforbrains. The only thing I don't understand about simpletons like you is why you continue to think your esteem and approval is of any value or desirability to anyone else.

What's that? You didn't understand the remarks about elitists? BIG shock, since you rarely understand anything more complicated than "See Spot run".

Let me spell it out for you. You are HORRIFIED by the very idea that someone might be so presumptuous as to believe they can think for themselves, read the Constitution for themselves, or ::gasp!:: understand for themselves what their rights and responsibilities as a citizen are, rather than dumbly shuffling along and nodding as some glorified lawyer in a black robe TELLS them who they are, what they can do, and what they "think". (I put the "think" into quotations precisely because that is what you leftist cattle are NOT doing. Letting the words of your leaders echo in an endless loop between the walls of your skull does not constitute "thinking".)

I, on the other hand, am not interested in what some group of judges has decided the Constitution says, or worse, what it SHOULD say. I can read the words for myself, and I am every bit as capable of comprehending the rules of the game (that "game" being basic citizenship) as any judge, and more so than a lot, since I'M not reading the Constitution with an eye toward how I can twist it to suit my agenda, which is frankly what they REALLY teach in law school.

So if you want to tell me about the Constitution, quote the ******* Constitution. Do NOT quote to me what some group of high-handed plutocrats whose asses you are currently excavating with your nose have told you it REALLY says, pay no attention to those pesky words, they're just a bunch of ink blots made by a crowd of rich, racist white guys who would have said THIS instead if they'd been as brilliant as we are.

Like I keep telling you, since the argument at hand is squarely about dipshits like you slavishly worshipping at the shrine of revisionist judicial activists, citing those self-same activists is unlikely to get you anywhere.

And no, triumphantly telling me what Antonin Scalia said on THIS day at THIS time, or anyone else for that matter, will not help you. Unlike you, I do not engage in celebrity or name-dropping politics. I admire well-known conservatives; I don't venerate and worship them. They're just people. Smart people, good people, sometimes even brilliantly inspired people, but people all the same. They're just as capable of being wrong as anyone else. Choirs of angels don't sing every time they open their mouths, and rainbows don't shoot out their assholes when they fart. If I say something, and you produce a quote from a conservative saying something else, that doesn't mean I'm a heretic from carved-in-stone dogma; it just means I disagree with another human being who is really no more important than I am.

Will you understand a word I just said? Let's just say I'm not betting serious money on it.

Hahahaha scalia is name dropping and an activist judge. Holy shit you are ******* stupid. All you have is this: dur constitution dur...

Yes you disagree with basically law since the founding of this nation.

Thank god you are nothing more than an internet nobody. You are too stupid to be anything valuable.

He is in good company though. In a way the Hamilton Class, has been scheming and scamming us from the start. Jefferson fought it, Madison fought it.

7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

There are always those that are never satisfied with what power they have. It is a sickness. It's also a form of theft.

 

[daveman]

Dont care. You people always find some problem. Again scotus has said the state or city has the right to regulate your gun be locked up. You have a problem with scalia and scotus, go challenge it in the courts.

Your claims of supporting gun ownership ring hollow if you don't mind people's ability to defend themselves with guns being restricted by law.

where do you get that i don't want people to defend themselves? All i stated is that the state or Federal has the right to regulate if you have to have a gun lock or in a gun case.

Gun locks prevent a gun being used defensively. The guy breaking into your home isn't going to stand there and wait while you get your gun into battery position.

You are going to be hard pressed to win that battle against gun locks and cases. Only the hardcore are really against that.

I am personally fine with having them or not. I think people with kids should have gun locks or cases for them. That is my personal opinion. If the state wants to regulate that, then i have no real beef with it.

The end result is you can take your gun out anytime you like and play with it.

Sure, playing with it. When it comes to defending your and your families' lives?

Not so great, actually.

My opinion is quite reasonable in my own opinion and i bet i would get more people behind mine, than yours.

Judging from the amount of gun sales going on lately, I bet you're wrong.

But amusing you are making it personal dave. Alinsky is alive and well within you.

Oh, I wish you idiots would lose the Alinsky shit. He was a progressive through and through. No rational person can claim he was a conservative hero (which explains why rightwinger tries that lame shit occasionally) or that the right uses Alinsky tactics.

 

[daveman]

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

So, you can't explain it.

I explained it quite clearly. You've created a false equivalency. The right to buy a gun is not the same as the right to vote,

therefore, it is not a valid argument to claim that someone is inconsistent if they don't apply the same restrictions/responsibilities of one to the other.

You can continue to stamp your feet and pout, but your tantrum is less than compelling.

And since the two are both Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, they are indeed the same.

 

[daveman]

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

They do that when they register to vote -- proof of address, proof of citizenship.

They they should have to show ID at the poll to prove they're the person who registered under that name.

What's so awful about that?

That was an artful dodge of the question. Let's try again:

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

Your premise is that voting and buying a gun are the same, so unless your as inconsistent as the people you're accusing of inconsistency,

you should want everyone to have a background check EACH TIME THEY VOTE.

You have already said you support background checks for EACH TIME SOMEONE BUYS A GUN.

Why aren't you being consistent?

It's funny how you think you're so clever.

Whoever told you you were did you no favor.

But continue your flailing. It's quite amusing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, you can't explain it.

I explained it quite clearly. You've created a false equivalency. The right to buy a gun is not the same as the right to vote,

therefore, it is not a valid argument to claim that someone is inconsistent if they don't apply the same restrictions/responsibilities of one to the other.

You can continue to stamp your feet and pout, but your tantrum is less than compelling.

And since the two are both Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, they are indeed the same.

If they are the same, then why don't you support a background check for every voter every time they vote?

Why don't you support a background check for every time anyone goes to church?

 

[OODA_Loop]

If they are the same, then why don't you support a background check for every voter every time they vote?

Show ID and proof of eligibility on voter rolls.

Show ID and proof of eligibility on NICS.

 

[daveman]

Voting is a fundamental right, gun ownership, not.

SCOTUS held that the 2nd affirms an individual right.

So it looks like you're wrong.

Looks can be deceiving.

No, an individual right and fundamental right are not the same thing.

You need to read and comprehend all of post #47; that you disagree with how the courts have addressed Second Amendment jurisprudence is of course irrelevant, as it clearly explains to you why there is no ‘dichotomy’ concerning the fundamental right to vote, and the individual right to own a handgun.

That's not the dichotomy I'm addressing.

I'm talking about the left's reaction to the two rights.

One must be accompanied by burdensome government intrusion.

The other must not.

And the difference is not driven by anything so lofty as jurisprudence or as simple as the dictionary meanings of words.

It's driven solely by the progressive agenda. And that agenda is:

1. Opposition of voter ID because the left depends on illegal voters.

2. Law-abiding people must be disarmed.

 

[daveman]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

And it also smacks of collective punishment. Prohibited by the Constitution, but loved by progressives all throughout history.

 

[daveman]

where do you get that i don't want people to defend themselves? All i stated is that the state or Federal has the right to regulate if you have to have a gun lock or in a gun case.

Gun locks prevent a gun being used defensively. The guy breaking into your home isn't going to stand there and wait while you get your gun into battery position.

Sure, playing with it. When it comes to defending your and your families' lives?

Not so great, actually.

Judging from the amount of gun sales going on lately, I bet you're wrong.

But amusing you are making it personal dave. Alinsky is alive and well within you.

Oh, I wish you idiots would lose the Alinsky shit. He was a progressive through and through. No rational person can claim he was a conservative hero (which explains why rightwinger tries that lame shit occasionally) or that the right uses Alinsky tactics.

Cry about it.
Again grab a tissue.
Guns sales are irrelevant, the end result is you still get the gun.
I never said he was a conservative hero. I just said you where using his tactics. If you need to keep making up arguments we are going to stop this conversation. Respond to what I state, not what I dont state.

Will you acknowledge that gun locks preclude using the gun defensively?

 

[NYcarbineer]

They do that when they register to vote -- proof of address, proof of citizenship.

They they should have to show ID at the poll to prove they're the person who registered under that name.

What's so awful about that?

That was an artful dodge of the question. Let's try again:

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

Your premise is that voting and buying a gun are the same, so unless your as inconsistent as the people you're accusing of inconsistency,

you should want everyone to have a background check EACH TIME THEY VOTE.

You have already said you support background checks for EACH TIME SOMEONE BUYS A GUN.

Why aren't you being consistent?

It's funny how you think you're so clever.

Whoever told you you were did you no favor.

But continue your flailing. It's quite amusing.

Personal insults don't help the fact that you can't refute what I'm saying.

 

[daveman]

I explained it quite clearly. You've created a false equivalency. The right to buy a gun is not the same as the right to vote,

therefore, it is not a valid argument to claim that someone is inconsistent if they don't apply the same restrictions/responsibilities of one to the other.

You can continue to stamp your feet and pout, but your tantrum is less than compelling.

And since the two are both Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, they are indeed the same.

If they are the same, then why don't you support a background check for every voter every time they vote?

I do...if the voter changes precincts. Then he has to re-register.

Why don't you support a background check for every time anyone goes to church?

Why? Do you think going to church is a danger to society?

You do, don't you?

 

[daveman]

That was an artful dodge of the question. Let's try again:

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

Your premise is that voting and buying a gun are the same, so unless your as inconsistent as the people you're accusing of inconsistency,

you should want everyone to have a background check EACH TIME THEY VOTE.

You have already said you support background checks for EACH TIME SOMEONE BUYS A GUN.

Why aren't you being consistent?

It's funny how you think you're so clever.

Whoever told you you were did you no favor.

But continue your flailing. It's quite amusing.

Personal insults don't help the fact that you can't refute what I'm saying.

I have. Do keep up.

Maybe you can suggest background checks for churchgoers again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

lol, daveman agrees with your post but earlier said he supports background checks.

Which is it, daveman?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny how you think you're so clever.

Whoever told you you were did you no favor.

But continue your flailing. It's quite amusing.

Personal insults don't help the fact that you can't refute what I'm saying.

I have. Do keep up.

Maybe you can suggest background checks for churchgoers again.

Now that you've agreed with M14shooter that background checks are unconstitutional, after you told me you supported them,

it's hard to tell what you do or don't believe.

 

[daveman]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

When the government stays the exercise of a right so it can make sure that said exercise is legal, the government has engaged in prior restraint.
This violates the constitution.

lol, daveman agrees with your post but earlier said he supports background checks.

Which is it, daveman?

Background checks are a necessary evil.

But you need to acknowledge that only law-abiding citizens are going to go through the process. Criminals who illegally obtain guns are not going to bother.

 

[daveman]

Personal insults don't help the fact that you can't refute what I'm saying.

I have. Do keep up.

Maybe you can suggest background checks for churchgoers again.

Now that you've agreed with M14shooter that background checks are unconstitutional, after you told me you supported them,

it's hard to tell what you do or don't believe.

All you have to do is ask.

 

[daveman]

Cry about it.
Again grab a tissue.
Guns sales are irrelevant, the end result is you still get the gun.
I never said he was a conservative hero. I just said you where using his tactics. If you need to keep making up arguments we are going to stop this conversation. Respond to what I state, not what I dont state.

Will you acknowledge that gun locks preclude using the gun defensively?

It could. But its point is irrelevant.

Nonsense. You claim you support the right to own weapons, then say the government can put a burdensome requirement on gun owners which will limit their usefulness as defensive weapons.

I don't think you know what you want.