Second Amendment Rights

[martybegan]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why Marty, I am supporting them. Arm eveyone at the GOP Convention. Short and long guns. Set up booths with free Jack Daniels and Tequila. A good time for all.

 

[Iceweasel]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Conservatives believe in gun control at their convention but think guns should be in schools. 'Gun-free' zones are mocked by cons daily but their political convention is a Gun-free zone? If the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, apparently the GOP doesn't think there will be any good guys at their convention! No one can carry a gun.

Hyppi, meet Pocrisy. This will be the granddaddy of all family meetings for you two.

Oh cons, how Charlton Heston would be so saddened that no one in the conservative ranks is saying "when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

When I saw that my impression of him went to zero. What a classless piece of shit. He was mocking Heston and all he's done is dopey kid flicks.

 

[martybegan]

Why Marty, I am supporting them. Arm eveyone at the GOP Convention. Short and long guns. Set up booths with free Jack Daniels and Tequila. A good time for all.

Lame Gotcha attempt, typical of your ilk.

 

[martybegan]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

 

[martybegan]

If the truth be known there are probably more left wing hypocrites packing concealed iron in Detroit and Chicago and long time liberal dominated north east cities during democrat events than there are "conservatives who support open carry" .

How does it make you a hypocrite?

I would prefer to live in a society where people didn't have guns. However because people do have guns I feel unsafe and feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. I would prefer not to have to need a gun to protect myself.

Where's the hypocrisy?

In a society without guns the biggest and strongest of us would rule over the others. You want that?

 

[Centinel]

Do you read anything about the FAA in the enumerated powers?

Nope.

How about the US Air Force, or the USMC, or perhaps the plans on how to build a Federal Courthouse, a Post Office or maybe an aircraft carrier or submarine?

Congress has the power to establish a navy and an army.

And to establish courts.

And to establish post offices and roads.

Do you see how illogical your position is when juxtaposed to real world situations?

Not really. Congress was given power to do a limited set of things.

I could go on listing shit for days or even weeks that have become law yet are both Constitutional and not within the enumeration, per se, but are both for the "...general welfare of the United States...;" (Article I, § 8, Cls 1)" and "... necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Article I, § 8, Cls 18).

I guess you think these two passages mean something other that what the founders intended also, eh? Why not just throw out the entire text of Article III ALONG with Article VI, Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause. That would be typical of you State's Right's folks and other "originalists" wanting to "modify" the portions of the Constitution that are not to their liking, right Brutus? Federalism is here to stay and your side lost the argument about 227 years ago. You want another Constitution, read the existing one and you and your brotherhood can go through the process.

Hey, why don't you do something surprising and RESPOND TO THE POINT MADE RATHER THAN REPEAT THE SAME DEBUNKED TRIPE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE EVERY SITUATION SPELLED OUT AND DETAILED IN THE ENUMERATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF WRITING AN ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST A SILLY UNFOUNDED DECLATATION?

Your point seems to be that congress' powers entail various details. Establishing a navy entails actually building submarines. I agree with that point.

However, the point remains that none of congress' enumerated powers can in any way be regarded as giving it any authority to enact gun control legislation effecting the people of the states.

There 's that poor logic of yours again. All the other laws regarding those examples of the Navy, establish Courts inferior to SCOTUS, establish post offices and post roads all entail other laws for a multitude of purposes. They are all IMPLIED POWERS, and you have even IMPLIED such in your last post. Hmmmmmm!

The following is from the Wex legal dictionary at Cornell's LII on the subject of Federalism. I'll just C&P part of one paragraph then you can tell the Constitutional lawyers who wrote the piece they don't know what the Hell they're talking about, too. Pay real close attention to what EXACTLY they say about powers. I'll try and highlight those so you won't miss them:

"The Constitution grants Congress power over issues of national concern. The powers granted to the federal government include delegated powers, implied powers, or inherent powers. Delegated powers, also known as enumerated or expressed powers, are listed under Article 1 Section 8, and include the power to levy taxes, declare war, mint money, punish piracy on the high seas, and establish post offices. In all, there are 27 powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Although implied powers are not laid out in the Constitution, they can be inferred from the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 Section 8. Inherent powers are neither listed nor implied in the Constitution, but arise from the nature of the national government and include the ability to acquire territory and sovereignty."

So let us all know how wrong they got it all wrong and you anti-Federalists living in the 18th century are the only ones with the true of it, Brutus!

When the states created their union, they delegated to it small set of powers. I agree that each of these powers implies a vast set of implied powers. For example, the power to establish a navy implies that congress has the power to purchase a ship or build a dockyard. The implied powers flow from the specific enumerated powers.

So which specific enumerated power would result in the implied power to restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms by the people of the states?

I have been detained in hospital these last three days and unable to respond. This post corrects that inability.

You erringly state that:

When the states created their union, they delegated to it small set of powers.

Those powers were not delegated, per se, but rather CEDED by the several States. In other words, the several States gave up a portion of their sovereignty to the National government. In 1861 there was an effort to reclaim that which had been ceded ending in failure. Today, there are many like yourself trying to reclaim powers ceded to the Federal claiming this and that, but, to a person, have no response to the mention of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI Cls 2 given it blows the shit out of the various. You see, an INFERIOR power cannot DELEGATE specific powers to a SUPERIOR power. That's like setting a bottle of water on the counter to attempt pouring the water up to empty it. That doesn't work just like powers won't flow UP either. Again Brutus, the anti-Federalists lost 227 years ago when the Constitution was ratified.

I agree that each of these powers implies a vast set of implied powers.

Good, some common ground finally without equivocation!

So which specific enumerated power would result in the implied power to restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms by the people of the states?

Already responded to; Article I § 8 Cls 1 - the General Welfare clause and Article I § 8 Cls 18 the Necessary and Proper clause. The first Federal gun control legislation was the National Firearms Act of 1934. The constitutionality of Federal gun control legislation has been upheld in broad terms with the most significant recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which you have already been cited and quoted from.

Scalia did not get it wrong, it's just the interpretation that some folks use to broaden its scope which are less than honest, shall we say. NONE of the SCOTUS precedents foreclose upon the Amendment II protections. With US v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois the individual's rights are sustained. Further, in US v. Miller and DC v. Heller, there is no ban of weapons only specific types used by the military/militia NOT THOSE in common use. Your entire anti-federalist argument is full of holes shot into it by the protections within the Constitution and further defined by SCOTUS. Q.E.D.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

So congress was given the power to tax in order to pay debts and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states.

How does the power to tax imply in any way that congress can prohibit the people of the states from keeping and bearing arms?

"18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This grants congress the power to make laws to implement all of the other powers listed in art I, section 8.

So the question remains. Which of the powers listed in that section would imply in any way that congress can prohibit the people of the states from keeping and bearing arms.

You still haven't pointed to any congress' powers that would imply that they could enact such a prohibition.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Do you read anything about the FAA in the enumerated powers?

Nope.

How about the US Air Force, or the USMC, or perhaps the plans on how to build a Federal Courthouse, a Post Office or maybe an aircraft carrier or submarine?

Congress has the power to establish a navy and an army.

And to establish courts.

And to establish post offices and roads.

Do you see how illogical your position is when juxtaposed to real world situations?

Not really. Congress was given power to do a limited set of things.

I could go on listing shit for days or even weeks that have become law yet are both Constitutional and not within the enumeration, per se, but are both for the "...general welfare of the United States...;" (Article I, § 8, Cls 1)" and "... necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Article I, § 8, Cls 18).

I guess you think these two passages mean something other that what the founders intended also, eh? Why not just throw out the entire text of Article III ALONG with Article VI, Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause. That would be typical of you State's Right's folks and other "originalists" wanting to "modify" the portions of the Constitution that are not to their liking, right Brutus? Federalism is here to stay and your side lost the argument about 227 years ago. You want another Constitution, read the existing one and you and your brotherhood can go through the process.

Hey, why don't you do something surprising and RESPOND TO THE POINT MADE RATHER THAN REPEAT THE SAME DEBUNKED TRIPE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE EVERY SITUATION SPELLED OUT AND DETAILED IN THE ENUMERATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF WRITING AN ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST A SILLY UNFOUNDED DECLATATION?

Your point seems to be that congress' powers entail various details. Establishing a navy entails actually building submarines. I agree with that point.

However, the point remains that none of congress' enumerated powers can in any way be regarded as giving it any authority to enact gun control legislation effecting the people of the states.

There 's that poor logic of yours again. All the other laws regarding those examples of the Navy, establish Courts inferior to SCOTUS, establish post offices and post roads all entail other laws for a multitude of purposes. They are all IMPLIED POWERS, and you have even IMPLIED such in your last post. Hmmmmmm!

The following is from the Wex legal dictionary at Cornell's LII on the subject of Federalism. I'll just C&P part of one paragraph then you can tell the Constitutional lawyers who wrote the piece they don't know what the Hell they're talking about, too. Pay real close attention to what EXACTLY they say about powers. I'll try and highlight those so you won't miss them:

"The Constitution grants Congress power over issues of national concern. The powers granted to the federal government include delegated powers, implied powers, or inherent powers. Delegated powers, also known as enumerated or expressed powers, are listed under Article 1 Section 8, and include the power to levy taxes, declare war, mint money, punish piracy on the high seas, and establish post offices. In all, there are 27 powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Although implied powers are not laid out in the Constitution, they can be inferred from the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 Section 8. Inherent powers are neither listed nor implied in the Constitution, but arise from the nature of the national government and include the ability to acquire territory and sovereignty."

So let us all know how wrong they got it all wrong and you anti-Federalists living in the 18th century are the only ones with the true of it, Brutus!

When the states created their union, they delegated to it small set of powers. I agree that each of these powers implies a vast set of implied powers. For example, the power to establish a navy implies that congress has the power to purchase a ship or build a dockyard. The implied powers flow from the specific enumerated powers.

So which specific enumerated power would result in the implied power to restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms by the people of the states?

I have been detained in hospital these last three days and unable to respond. This post corrects that inability.

You erringly state that:

When the states created their union, they delegated to it small set of powers.

Those powers were not delegated, per se, but rather CEDED by the several States. In other words, the several States gave up a portion of their sovereignty to the National government. In 1861 there was an effort to reclaim that which had been ceded ending in failure. Today, there are many like yourself trying to reclaim powers ceded to the Federal claiming this and that, but, to a person, have no response to the mention of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI Cls 2 given it blows the shit out of the various. You see, an INFERIOR power cannot DELEGATE specific powers to a SUPERIOR power. That's like setting a bottle of water on the counter to attempt pouring the water up to empty it. That doesn't work just like powers won't flow UP either. Again Brutus, the anti-Federalists lost 227 years ago when the Constitution was ratified.

I agree that each of these powers implies a vast set of implied powers.

Good, some common ground finally without equivocation!

So which specific enumerated power would result in the implied power to restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms by the people of the states?

Already responded to; Article I § 8 Cls 1 - the General Welfare clause and Article I § 8 Cls 18 the Necessary and Proper clause. The first Federal gun control legislation was the National Firearms Act of 1934. The constitutionality of Federal gun control legislation has been upheld in broad terms with the most significant recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which you have already been cited and quoted from.

Scalia did not get it wrong, it's just the interpretation that some folks use to broaden its scope which are less than honest, shall we say. NONE of the SCOTUS precedents foreclose upon the Amendment II protections. With US v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois the individual's rights are sustained. Further, in US v. Miller and DC v. Heller, there is no ban of weapons only specific types used by the military/militia NOT THOSE in common use. Your entire anti-federalist argument is full of holes shot into it by the protections within the Constitution and further defined by SCOTUS. Q.E.D.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

So congress was given the power to tax in order to pay debts and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states.

How does the power to tax imply in any way that congress can prohibit the people of the states from keeping and bearing arms?

"18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This grants congress the power to make laws to implement all of the other powers listed in art I, section 8.

So the question remains. Which of the powers listed in that section would imply in any way that congress can prohibit the people of the states from keeping and bearing arms.

You still haven't pointed to any congress' powers that would imply that they could enact such a prohibition.

Now you're playing the obtuse ass again!

If Congress didn't have the power to pass gun control legislation then just how does SCOTUS keep overlooking that point, HUH? How did Scalia get it so very wrong in Heller?

The House, Senate AND SCOTUS have pointed toward the Commerce clause a number of times. You have previously stated that you agree with the proposition of implied powers being applied to the enumerated Legislative powers. In other words, the subject of DIRECT INTEREST need not be mentioned directly in the enumeration, but implied as "Necessary and Proper" and PAID [think public safety and welfare] from the public purse in support of the "General Welfare".

So you tell me exactly how the people are being denied the possession of fire arms who are not banned by law from possessing them by law for CAUSE! The record says you are dead wrong, but give it a shot! To keep it simple for you, just stick to the National Firearms Acts of 1934 & 1938. Now if you know of some other legislation that puts a blanket prohibition on firearms cite it. Using your own words below, back that statement up and show that legislation doing just what you stated EXISTS;

Which of the powers listed in that section would imply in any way that congress can prohibit the people of the states from keeping and bearing arms.

CITE THE LAWS CONSTITUTIONALLY IN FORCE WHICH, EXCEPT FOR THOSE PROSCRIBED BY LAW FOR CAUSE, DENY PEOPLE FROM KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS NOT CONSIDERED WMD's OR CERTAIN OTHER MILITARY WEAPONS/ARMS SUCH AS LAND MINES!

 

[Centinel]

Now you're playing the obtuse ass again!

If Congress didn't have the power to pass gun control legislation then just how does SCOTUS keep overlooking that point, HUH? How did Scalia get it so very wrong in Heller?

I'm sorry you think I'm an obtuse ass. However, I am unconvinced that any of the powers listed in art I, section 8 can imply the power of the federal government to involve itself in any way with the acquisition or possesion of firearms by the people of the several states.

The power to tax to provide for the general welfare cannot imply such a power.

The power to enact legislation to implement congress' powers can't imply such a power.

The power to keep commerce regular among the several states can't imply such a power.

So far, you're coming up with nothing. You say the power to be involved in this area is implied, but what exactly implies it? As we have already discussed, the power to purchase a submarine is implied by the power to establish a navy. All implied powers must be rooted in one of congress' enumerated powers. So from which enumerated power does the power to involve itself with the acquisition and possesion of firearms spring?

The House, Senate AND SCOTUS have pointed toward the Commerce clause a number of times. You have previously stated that you agree with the proposition of implied powers being applied to the enumerated Legislative powers. In other words, the subject of DIRECT INTEREST need not be mentioned directly in the enumeration, but implied as "Necessary and Proper" and PAID [think public safety and welfare] from the public purse in support of the "General Welfare".

Actually that's not what it says. It doesn't say any law that congress considers necessary and proper. It actually says "necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers." So which of the foregoing powers would imply that congress can involve itself in the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the several states?

So you tell me exactly how the people are being denied the possession of fire arms who are not banned by law from possessing them by law for CAUSE! The record says you are dead wrong, but give it a shot! To keep it simple for you, just stick to the National Firearms Acts of 1934 & 1938. Now if you know of some other legislation that puts a blanket prohibition on firearms cite it. Using your own words below, back that statement up and show that legislation doing just what you stated EXISTS;

Which of the powers listed in that section would imply in any way that congress can prohibit the people of the states from keeping and bearing arms.

CITE THE LAWS CONSTITUTIONALLY IN FORCE WHICH, EXCEPT FOR THOSE PROSCRIBED BY LAW FOR CAUSE, DENY PEOPLE FROM KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS NOT CONSIDERED WMD's OR CERTAIN OTHER MILITARY WEAPONS/ARMS SUCH AS LAND MINES!

Are there such laws? If there are, they would certainly not be derived from congress' legitimate enumerated powers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

What part?

I've posted this many times on here

Second Amendment Rights

Go read post 75, it's on the previous page.

Let me put it this way, you don't understand the Heller case at all/

Heller UPHELD Presser, which said carrying arms was NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 2A.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the truth be known there are probably more left wing hypocrites packing concealed iron in Detroit and Chicago and long time liberal dominated north east cities during democrat events than there are "conservatives who support open carry" .

How does it make you a hypocrite?

I would prefer to live in a society where people didn't have guns. However because people do have guns I feel unsafe and feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. I would prefer not to have to need a gun to protect myself.

Where's the hypocrisy?

In a society without guns the biggest and strongest of us would rule over the others. You want that?

You don't think this is the case right now?

You don't think those who control the govt haven't go everyone exactly where they want them?

I mean, seriously, how many people vote for parties other than the main too parties?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Now you're playing the obtuse ass again!

If Congress didn't have the power to pass gun control legislation then just how does SCOTUS keep overlooking that point, HUH? How did Scalia get it so very wrong in Heller?

I'm sorry you think I'm an obtuse ass. However, I am unconvinced that any of the powers listed in art I, section 8 can imply the power of the federal government to involve itself in any way with the acquisition or possesion of firearms by the people of the several states.

The power to tax to provide for the general welfare cannot imply such a power.

The power to enact legislation to implement congress' powers can't imply such a power.

The power to keep commerce regular among the several states can't imply such a power.

So far, you're coming up with nothing. You say the power to be involved in this area is implied, but what exactly implies it? As we have already discussed, the power to purchase a submarine is implied by the power to establish a navy. All implied powers must be rooted in one of congress' enumerated powers. So from which enumerated power does the power to involve itself with the acquisition and possesion of firearms spring?

The House, Senate AND SCOTUS have pointed toward the Commerce clause a number of times. You have previously stated that you agree with the proposition of implied powers being applied to the enumerated Legislative powers. In other words, the subject of DIRECT INTEREST need not be mentioned directly in the enumeration, but implied as "Necessary and Proper" and PAID [think public safety and welfare] from the public purse in support of the "General Welfare".

Actually that's not what it says. It doesn't say any law that congress considers necessary and proper. It actually says "necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers." So which of the foregoing powers would imply that congress can involve itself in the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the several states?

So you tell me exactly how the people are being denied the possession of fire arms who are not banned by law from possessing them by law for CAUSE! The record says you are dead wrong, but give it a shot! To keep it simple for you, just stick to the National Firearms Acts of 1934 & 1938. Now if you know of some other legislation that puts a blanket prohibition on firearms cite it. Using your own words below, back that statement up and show that legislation doing just what you stated EXISTS;

Which of the powers listed in that section would imply in any way that congress can prohibit the people of the states from keeping and bearing arms.

CITE THE LAWS CONSTITUTIONALLY IN FORCE WHICH, EXCEPT FOR THOSE PROSCRIBED BY LAW FOR CAUSE, DENY PEOPLE FROM KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS NOT CONSIDERED WMD's OR CERTAIN OTHER MILITARY WEAPONS/ARMS SUCH AS LAND MINES!

Are there such laws? If there are, they would certainly not be derived from congress' legitimate enumerated powers.

NOW YOU HAVE CONFIRMED YOU ARE AN OBTUSE ASS! You're unconvinced that Congressional power exists to pass into law gun control legislation, IN SPITE of the fact that it has been and is being exercised???? Given at least You believe the Tax and Spend clause is just a Tax clause for the "General Welfare" that blunder can be explained by ignorance. You WILL NOT even try to support your "arguments", but rather dodge discussing them. You refer to yourself as an anti-Federalist, even though that cabal of status quo adherents lost their argument in 1787; a pox upon them!

In your post #31, to which I responded, you wrote;

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

That has been your premise all along. Yet you cannot, by your own admission above, name a single piece of legislation barring the ownership of lawful firearms OR present a single citation to support that thesis or that of the Congress lacking the power to use the Commerce Clause as justification of a gun law, using Treasury monies to pay for enforcement or that the Necessary and Proper Clause is justified. But if one keeps a blind eye toward references to such as US v. Miller pretending the inconvenient truth does not exist to simply have an excuse to dismiss the implication of the Commerce Clause as the very basis for a part of the National Firearms Act of 1934, only then can your erroneous theory be made to fit into your very special universe.

By your own declaration that 1) Congress can't enact gun control legislation, but, 2) Multiple pieces of legislation and amendments to existing gun control statutes have been codified in the USC, then 3) Your thesis is MOOT and without standing on its face! So go elsewhere and peddle your outdated and worn anti-Federalist dogma.

 

[Rustic]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

Buy more guns and ammo, by and for the individual...

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

Buy more guns and ammo, by and for the individual...

Maybe next time you'd like to contribute to this thread.

 

[martybegan]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

What part?

I've posted this many times on here

Second Amendment Rights

Go read post 75, it's on the previous page.

Let me put it this way, you don't understand the Heller case at all/

Heller UPHELD Presser, which said carrying arms was NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 2A.

No, it just said that some regulations are acceptable, it did not say carrying arms was NOT a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

[martybegan]

If the truth be known there are probably more left wing hypocrites packing concealed iron in Detroit and Chicago and long time liberal dominated north east cities during democrat events than there are "conservatives who support open carry" .

How does it make you a hypocrite?

I would prefer to live in a society where people didn't have guns. However because people do have guns I feel unsafe and feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. I would prefer not to have to need a gun to protect myself.

Where's the hypocrisy?

In a society without guns the biggest and strongest of us would rule over the others. You want that?

You don't think this is the case right now?

You don't think those who control the govt haven't go everyone exactly where they want them?

I mean, seriously, how many people vote for parties other than the main too parties?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Centinel]

NOW YOU HAVE CONFIRMED YOU ARE AN OBTUSE ASS! You're unconvinced that Congressional power exists to pass into law gun control legislation, IN SPITE of the fact that it has been and is being exercised???? Given at least You believe the Tax and Spend clause is just a Tax clause for the "General Welfare" that blunder can be explained by ignorance. You WILL NOT even try to support your "arguments", but rather dodge discussing them. You refer to yourself as an anti-Federalist, even though that cabal of status quo adherents lost their argument in 1787; a pox upon them!

In your post #31, to which I responded, you wrote;

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

That has been your premise all along. Yet you cannot, by your own admission above, name a single piece of legislation barring the ownership of lawful firearms OR present a single citation to support that thesis or that of the Congress lacking the power to use the Commerce Clause as justification of a gun law, using Treasury monies to pay for enforcement or that the Necessary and Proper Clause is justified. But if one keeps a blind eye toward references to such as US v. Miller pretending the inconvenient truth does not exist to simply have an excuse to dismiss the implication of the Commerce Clause as the very basis for a part of the National Firearms Act of 1934, only then can your erroneous theory be made to fit into your very special universe.

By your own declaration that 1) Congress can't enact gun control legislation, but, 2) Multiple pieces of legislation and amendments to existing gun control statutes have been codified in the USC, then 3) Your thesis is MOOT and without standing on its face! So go elsewhere and peddle your outdated and worn anti-Federalist dogma.

I refer to myself as an anti-federalist? Really? I don't recall doing so. However, I am in favor of the federal government exercising only its constitutional powers.

I assume we agree that congress doesn't have plenary legislative power but may only enact legislation consistent with the power delegated to it by the states, as enumerated in art I, section 8. So when asking whether congress may legitimately enact any particular law, the answer must always first be no, unless one can point to a power in art I, section 8 that would permit them to do so.

You have cited three clauses in that section which you believe allow congress to enact gun control legislation. First is the necessary and proper clause. Second is the taxing clause, and third is the commerce clause.

The necessary and proper clause simply gives congress the power to implement laws that are necessary and proper to carry out the other powers listed in the section. It doesnot confer plenary legislative power. Therefore, the power to enact any gun control laws cannot be implied by this power.

The taxing clause gives congress the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. The power to tax to provide for the general welfare clearly does not imply any power to enact gun control legislation.

Lastly, congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Clearly, congress may enact legislation concerning how any state conducts commerce with other states, but this does not imply that congress may enact gun control legislation affecting the individual people of the several states.

So given that any power not delegated to the union is reserved to the states, and given that the constitution doesn't enumerate any power that would imply that it can enact gun control laws, I have to conclude that if congress were to enact such a law that law would be contrary to the constitution.

Hopefully this clears up my position.

 

[martybegan]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

So back in colonial times a person could be arrested for walking around with a musket? Is that what you are telling me? A person has a right to keep and bear arms, not just when the government decides to let you. The militia clause was to allow the States to keep an armed force as a counter to the federal government in part, and as an aid to the federal government when needed. That the States don't muster the militia anymore in now way infringes on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. If they meant it to be part of the militia, they would make being part of it a condition, which they clearly didn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

What part?

I've posted this many times on here

Second Amendment Rights

Go read post 75, it's on the previous page.

Let me put it this way, you don't understand the Heller case at all/

Heller UPHELD Presser, which said carrying arms was NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 2A.

No, it just said that some regulations are acceptable, it did not say carrying arms was NOT a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

"It", what do you mean by "it"? My post, the OP? What?