Does the Constitution give States the right to regulate guns?

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. No, we don't. That is just more, right wing fallacy induced fantasy.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The second clause of our Second Amendment, is Not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[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

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

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

lol. No, we don't. That is just more, right wing fallacy induced fallacy.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The second clause of our Second Amendment, is Not a Constitution unto itself.

The militia is bound to the right, not the right to the militia.

 

[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 discussing, "drugless wonder"?

lol. that is why i don't take the right wing seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. No, we don't. That is just more, right wing fallacy induced fallacy.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The second clause of our Second Amendment, is Not a Constitution unto itself.

The militia is bound to the right, not the right to the militia.

it says, well regulated militia are Necessary, if we have to quibble.

 

[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

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

I am asking where the Constitution gives states the power to undermine the 2nd. Or any other amendment, for that matter.
I have already stated, i am not interested in what political activists have to say.

 

[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.

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

Do you know what "arm" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The second amendment doesn't preclude regulation altogether. .

Why doesnt it?

Same reason why the first amendment doesn't preclude regulation of speech (can't libel or slander people) or religion (can't commit human sacrifice just because Mictlantecuhtli told you to). On a regulation scale of 0 to 1000 these amendments demand that Congress (and with addition of the 14th amendment, the states) stay in the shallow end. Not that they have to stay on zero.

 

[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.

Do you know what "arm" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

Back then, "well regulated" was a common phrase. It meant keeping a persons equipment in working order.

 

[TNHarley]

The second amendment doesn't preclude regulation altogether. .

Why doesnt it?

Same reason why the first amendment doesn't preclude regulation of speech (can't libel or slander people) or religion (can't commit human sacrifice just because Mictlantecuhtli told you to). On a regulation scale of 0 to 1000 these amendments demand that Congress (and with addition of the 14th amendment, the states) stay in the shallow end. Not that they have to stay on zero.

One can argue those are there so people wont use their rights to impede on others.
An inanimate object cant do that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

And, for that very reason, I have argued that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Am I right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you know what "arm" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

That's weak. No one is debating the definition of an "arm" as it is applied in the 2nd Amendment.

It doesn't really matter anyway. The 2nd is clearly a limit on federal authority, so the "well regulated" part means nothing in terms of federal law.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

lol. No, we don't. That is just more, right wing fallacy induced fallacy.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The second clause of our Second Amendment, is Not a Constitution unto itself.

The militia is bound to the right, not the right to the militia.

it says, well regulated militia are Necessary, if we have to quibble.

I don't quibble over simple English.

 

[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

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

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

I am asking where the Constitution gives states the power to undermine the 2nd. Or any other amendment, for that matter.
I have already stated, i am not interested in what political activists have to say.

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

Well, in that case. Let's just go ahead and shut down USMB. No need for any thoughtful discussions or exchange of ideas/knowledge. Everybody just work on their own and let google be the guide.

 

[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

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

I am asking where the Constitution gives states the power to undermine the 2nd. Or any other amendment, for that matter.
I have already stated, i am not interested in what political activists have to say.

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

All i claim is i can read what the document says and dont have to interpret it to fit my agenda.

 

[bendog]

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

Well, in that case. Let's just go ahead and shut down USMB. No need for any thoughtful discussions or exchange of ideas/knowledge. Everybody just work on their own and let google be the guide.

Thoughtful discussion does not mean tin horn two bit idiots giving their own reading to historical documents that have been studied for centuries. Rather it involves actually attempting to understand what people meant when they wrote stuff nearly three hundred fucking years ago. JFC

 

[bendog]

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

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

I am asking where the Constitution gives states the power to undermine the 2nd. Or any other amendment, for that matter.
I have already stated, i am not interested in what political activists have to say.

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

All i claim is i can read what the document says and dont have to interpret it to fit my agenda.

bullshit. If you could read, you'd be trying but you ain't.

 

[TNHarley]

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

Well, in that case. Let's just go ahead and shut down USMB. No need for any thoughtful discussions or exchange of ideas/knowledge. Everybody just work on their own and let google be the guide.

Thoughtful discussion does not mean tin horn two bit idiots giving their own reading to historical documents that have been studied for centuries. Rather it involves actually attempting to understand what people meant when they wrote stuff nearly three hundred fucking years ago. JFC

I look up intent when i read the Constitution. In fact, most of the time when i discuss it, i refer to intent.
Any other ignorant claims you want to throw my way?
Hey, since you can read minds and know what i do offline, can you tell me what i am thinking right now?

 

[TNHarley]

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

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

I am asking where the Constitution gives states the power to undermine the 2nd. Or any other amendment, for that matter.
I have already stated, i am not interested in what political activists have to say.

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

All i claim is i can read what the document says and dont have to interpret it to fit my agenda.

bullshit. If you could read, you'd be trying but you ain't.

Trying to read what?
If you cant find where the constitution gives states the power to defy the constitution, for gawd sakes, shut the fuck up.