Does the Constitution give States the right to regulate guns?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Like banning flowers called pot.

Exactly. It is not all together clear to me whether Congress relied on the commerce clause or general welfare clause to illegally ban that substance. I don't think they give a fuck about whether they are passing laws that are unconstitutional. They just do it and get paid.

The cannabis ban is certainly unwarranted under the regulatory scheme, given the other drugs regulated to that level.

My guess is that alcohol lobby works overtime to keep cannabis a schedule 1 drug along with heroine, cocaine, and LSD because it is relatively cheap to grow your high in your back yard, rather than pay anywhere from $11.00 per gallon to $400.00 per gallon on their product. Recreational use of cannabis will cut into their profits, and they have drunk drivers and victims to kill.

 

[TNHarley]

Like banning flowers called pot.

Exactly. It is not all together clear to me whether Congress relied on the commerce clause or general welfare clause to illegally ban that substance. I don't think they give a fuck about whether they are passing laws that are unconstitutional. They just do it and get paid.

The cannabis ban is certainly unwarranted under the regulatory scheme, given the other drugs regulated to that level.

My guess is that alcohol lobby works overtime to keep cannabis a schedule 1 drug along with heroine, cocaine, and LSD because it is relatively cheap to grow your high in your back yard, rather than pay anywhere from $11.00 per gallon to $400.00 per gallon on their product. Recreational use of cannabis will cut into their profits, and they have drunk drivers and victims to kill.

It was commerce.
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It was commerce.
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

Let me guess. Growing cannabis in my back yard "might" tangentially have some minuscule, scintilla of an affect on interstate commerce, therefore the Fed Gov can regulate the fuck out of it, therefore, no soup for YOU!!! Amiright?


I hope the pot-smoking commies on here can see why we hate their ilk. This affects them.

 

[my2¢]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Without reading much more, it seems that the ONLY guy on the Court interested in protecting liberty and the separation of state and federal power is Justice Thomas.

From his dissenting opinion:

"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

 

[TNHarley]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

How does that change anything?

Is this not a proper interpretation of the Amendment:

Because a well trained and functioning militia is necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The power is reserved to the States.

What is so hard or wrong about that?

 

[bendog]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

ummmmm, 250 so odd years of history and multiple Supreme Court cases. What rock you been hindin' unner? LOL

 

[danielpalos]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

Right wing fantasy.

 

[TNHarley]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

Right wing fantasy.

fantasy what, dopehead?
Good luck trying to elaborate

 

[my2¢]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

 

[TNHarley]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

ummmmm, 250 so odd years of history and multiple Supreme Court cases. What rock you been hindin' unner? LOL

You know damn well idc what political activists interpret when the words are plain as day.
Maybe you will be able to elaborate farther

 

[TNHarley]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

So, what gives Congress the power to limit what a state can allow its people to keep and bear? Seems pretty clear that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, no?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

Doubtful.

I gave him a hint in my interpretation, which use I have researched.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

Also, lookout for danielpalos. I have him on ignore but you can expect a bunch of nonsense about the wellness of regulation of the State to keep and bear a clueless and causeless militia not being infringed or some shit.

 

[TNHarley]

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

Also, lookout for danielpalos. I have him on ignore but you can expect a bunch of nonsense about the wellness of regulation of the State to keep and bear a clueless and causeless militia not being infringed or some shit.

He is a virgin that is already burnt out. He cant help it bro.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

It comes from the 1683 English Bill of Rights and our English Colonies.

 

[danielpalos]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

Right wing fantasy.

fantasy what, dopehead?
Good luck trying to elaborate

lol. What are we discussing, "drugless wonder"?

 

[TNHarley]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

Right wing fantasy.

fantasy what, dopehead?
Good luck trying to elaborate

lol. What are discussing, "drugless wonder"?