Reply With Quotenowhere does it say a person MUST be part of a well regulated militia. even SCOTUS says that is true. or do you need to discount that portion of a decision by Scalia you support?Originally Posted by BidenPresident
rebel
how often do you get beat about the head and shoulders with facts and logic? that's 1 of 2 reasons to put someone on ignore
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
rebel
nowhere does it say a person MUST be part of a well regulated militia. even SCOTUS says that is true. or do you need to discount that portion of a decision by Scalia you support?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
1960s Chick Magnet
This message is hidden because SmarterthanYou is on your ignore list.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969
Verified User
The Articles of Confederation would more fit the framework created by the Declaration by having a very weak central government with most powers remaining in the colonies. The Constitution altered that framework by giving several powers to the central government not contained in the Articles.
Many saw this as a betrayal and illegal because the function of the constitutional convention was only to "revise" the Articles and not write a new constitution. Also, the Articles required a unanimous vote to make any changes and the Constitution only required 9 votes for ratification.
So, if there are only 48 states as you claim because states disobeyed their own constitutions, the U. S. Constitution never went into effect because it disobeyed the Articles. Right--both are farfetched.
rebel
then be a student. research and learn. read all the commentaries about what the 2nd Amendment means. come back to us educated
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
go fuck yourself you ignorant buffoon
rebel
and, according to madison, those powers are FEW AND DEFINED..........in other words, they still wanted a limited government, but they did see the limitations on the articles that needed improvement. but NOWHERE in any of the commentaries did they ever admit that congress had power over the arms of the people.......in fact, several went out of their way to say the opposite
Many saw this as a betrayal and illegal because the function of the constitutional convention was only to "revise" the Articles and not write a new constitution. Also, the Articles required a unanimous vote to make any changes and the Constitution only required 9 votes for ratification. [/QUOTE]
and all of those votes came with prior explanations on the limits of those new powers............
what are you babbling about here?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
rebel
that's what I knew you would do when faced with reality
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
No, because it is the function of each state to determine criminal law. None include abortion under murder laws.
How did I discount them? Jefferson was an anti-federalists and the framers of the Constitution were federalists. Their attempts to protect liberty did not satisfy most anti-federalists because the new document did not contain anything protecting our basic liberties; thus, the framers agreed to add the Bill of Rights to get their support.
Those constitutional rights protect our liberties, not the Declaration.
Verified User
Right. That is why most gun laws are state regulations.
Sorry, I assumed you agreed with the claims of Into the Night that there are only 48 states. That makes him a minority of one.
rebel
weren't you here earlier arguing that there is federal laws that prohibit ownership of certain weapons?????? that seems outside of state determination, doesn't it?
and there are dozens of pieces of documentation, regarding these, that clearly state that congress had no power over the right of the people to keep and bear arms, do you not agree?
The Declaration spells out our claim of such rights...........otherwise, within the framework of the Constitution, where do our rights come from?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
rebel
then do you disagree with a federal prohibition on the ownership of automatic weapons?
I did not see him stating that, so my apologies as well for my assumptions
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
Yes, because federal gun legislation does exist.
rebel
then please tell me how you can accept federal gun legislation where there is clearly no power to do such a thing?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
I didn't say anything about accepting it. I said it exists and is enforced.
Do you accept the congressional power to regulate immigration? That is not in the Constitution.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks