CT gun registration leads to confiscation

Truth Detector said:
It is a unique document for Governing THIS nation; how does it apply to those outside of the US?
Click to expand...

see, now this is your damn problem. it's not about governing a nation, it's about limiting the power of a gov entity. if it were not to apply to anyone OUTSIDE of this nation, then the constitution wouldn't mention the power to regulate commerce with other nations.

in other words, the document in question tells what the gov has the power to do ONLY. not who they have power over.
 
son, summarizing your arguments....first you played word games in challenging the constitution's being an instrument of governance for the american people, americans....then you asserted that foreign fighters held at gitmo were due constitutional considerations because the constitution is applicable to everyone....now when confronted with the clear words of the preamble you twist in a new direction, i guess implying that i oppose the second amendment when i have said nothing of the sort and have really said nothing on the subject at all....i am a conservative, i believe in the constitution as written and understood by our founding fathers....i believe in the right to keep and bear arms and believe that the word infringe the root being fringe clearly means that the govt will make no law even usurping the very edges of gun ownership....the cts have ruled that the govt may limit fundamental liberties but must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest....of course this is a slippery slope and is being employed to disarm the american people....the second amendment was drafted not to ensure the rights of hunters or self defense, these were so much a given as not to be even worth discussion....the second amendment was drafted as a check on the very govt that we see today, in fact we are a constitutional republic by design to safe guard if possible from the very govt we see today....unfortunately the culture is largely dead and we are sleep walking toward a totalitarian fascism that only a generation ago would be inconceivable.....our unwillingness to learn from history and even the history of our own lives is going to kick us dead in the arse.....
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
see, now this is your damn problem. it's not about governing a nation, it's about limiting the power of a gov entity.
Click to expand...

Wrong; it is a document ABOUT Governing a nation WITH built in limitations.

Perhaps if you read it and comprehended it you wouldn’t make such remarkably stupid claims.

It clearly spells out duties and responsibilities; thus it is a GOVERNING document.

SmarterthanYou said:
if it were not to apply to anyone OUTSIDE of this nation, then the constitution wouldn't mention the power to regulate commerce with other nations.
Click to expand...

Good lord; how simple minded are you? It doesn’t talk about regulating OTHER nation’s commerce, but OUR commerce with OTHER nations. You cannot regulate other nation’s.

SmarterthanYou said:
in other words, the document in question tells what the gov has the power to do ONLY. not who they have power over.
Click to expand...

UGH!

I understand what you are trying to say, but it really is dumb. You do realize we are a Republic of States and not a strict Democracy.

Here is a really nice essay on what this document is, read and become informed:

The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:
1. Establish a federal government for the United States of America
2. Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers.
The Constitution was written by the thirteen original states. The federal government created by the states, via the Constitution, exists to serve the states. Until the states delegated some powers to the new federal government, those powers belonged to the states. The states, of course, delegated only some of their powers to the federal government while retaining most of their powers for themselves.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that is so much spin, bill o'reilly wouldn't understand it.
Click to expand...

okay, that is a start, admitting that you don't understand....now, pickup a copy and read son....if you want to discuss some aspect of the constitution i am surely willing, not being a constitutional scholar, just knowing what i know.....
 
SmarterthanYou said:
wow you are extremely ignorant. let's try an experiment, shall we?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

does that say 'the citizens', or 'the americans', or even 'the people of the united states'?????? no, it simply says 'the people', meaning that the government has zero power or authority over the arms of the people.

see, something your idiot conservative unconstitutional mindset hasn't understood yet is that the constitution was written by we the people to LIMIT the GOVERNMENT power, not to tell it how to rule over we the people.
Click to expand...

Are you so entrenched in your fear that you weren't even able to see that the response was to one that Rune had raised in a response to one of yours. :palm:

grumpyone said:
the constitution is a body of law for the benefit of america and americans, it does not speak to foreign combatants.....
Click to expand...

Rune said:
Dumb as ever.
Click to expand...

grumpyone said:
dumb as ever is to believe that our constitution as written and ratified by the founding fathers was intended to be anything a blue print for defining and limiting the fed govt and it's relationship with the american people....what is a civil right....
Click to expand...

Rune said:
How does a limiting document only apply to Americans?
Click to expand...

grumpyone said:
son, jackass, " we the people of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect UNION, establish justice, ensure DOMESTIC tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"....son, give reading a chance and just say no to your self indulgent and blissful ignorance.....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you so entrenched in your fear that you weren't even able to see that the response was to one that Rune had raised in a response to one of yours. :palm:
Click to expand...

Uh, no, moron.

I was replying to Icebitch.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by grumpyone
dumb as ever is to believe that our constitution as written and ratified by the founding fathers was intended to be anything a blue print for defining and limiting the fed govt and it's relationship with the american people....what is a civil right....



How does a limiting document only apply to Americans?​


​
Damn you are a stupid fucker.
 
Rune said:
Uh, no, moron.

I was replying to Icebitch.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by grumpyone
dumb as ever is to believe that our constitution as written and ratified by the founding fathers was intended to be anything a blue print for defining and limiting the fed govt and it's relationship with the american people....what is a civil right....



How does a limiting document only apply to Americans?​


​
Damn you are a stupid fucker.
Click to expand...

Where were you replying to Scarla?
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
I believe that there exists a very different application of constitutional protections for unlawful enemy combatants and US citizens. I think that peeling away the childish snark of "son"and "boy" between the posters grumpy and STY, you can understand that the underlying conflict is more gray than black and white IMO.

Food for thought.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/what-is-an-enemy-combatant-90436.html
Click to expand...

son, you are wrong....the constitution is not grey, it is either applicable or not....it is not....
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
I was commenting about the way people can disagree over what the constitution reststains our government from doing.
Click to expand...

I believe that there exists a very different application of constitutional protections for unlawful enemy combatants and US citizens.

these are your words are they not....there are no protections for unlawful enemy combatants to be found within the constitution son, the constitution was written the benefit of americans....if it is not there and you want it, then the process is called amendment....the constitution is not spandex to be stretched to fit every and any situation, further if we treat it as such then it will be meaningless....as i think of it that is what the left has succeeded in doing, making our constitutional body of law meaningless....
 
grumpyone said:
I believe that there exists a very different application of constitutional protections for unlawful enemy combatants and US citizens.

these are your words are they not....there are no protections for unlawful enemy combatants to be found within the constitution son, the constitution was written the benefit of americans....if it is not there and you want it, then the process is called amendment....the constitution is not spandex to be stretched to fit every and any situation, further if we treat it as such then it will be meaningless....as i think of it that is what the left has succeeded in doing, making our constitutional body of law meaningless....
Click to expand...

Yes, my words, and I think them valid.

http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/enemycombatants.pdf

This is not to say I think the Bush admin was evil in its application of prior case law when dealing with enemy combatants, only that I believe they had it wrong.
 
OK idiots, let's end this here and now. Those that wrote the Constitution wrote other documents as well, their thinking about this subject is quite clear.

In 1776 the Second Continental Congress asked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman to write the Declaration of Independence. The five men voted to have Thomas Jefferson write the document. After Jefferson finished he gave the document to Franklin to proof. Franklin suggested minor changes, but one of them stands out far more than the others. Jefferson had written, "We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable..." Franklin changed it to, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence states as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[SUP][4][/SUP]
​
The Virginia Declaration of Rights, authored by George Mason and approved by the Virginia Convention on June 12, 1776, contains the wording:
"all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which . . . they cannot deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."[SUP][5][/SUP]
​
The Massachusetts Constitution, chiefly authored by John Adams in 1780, contains in its Declaration of Rights the wording:
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.[SUP][6][/SUP]
​
The plaintiffs in the cases of Brom and Bett v. John Ashley and Commonwealth v. Nathaniel Jennison argued that this provision abolished slavery in Massachusetts.[SUP][7][/SUP] The latter case resulted in a "sweeping declaration . . . that the institution of slavery was incompatible with the principles of liberty and legal equality articulated in the new Massachusetts Constitution".[SUP][8][/SUP]
The phrase has since been considered a hallmark statement in democratic constitutions and similar human rights instruments, many of which have adopted the phrase or variants thereof.[SUP][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

No where is this statement modified by any phrase such as "all men residing in America" , "all Massachussets residents", " All white men" etc.
so SHUT THE FUCK UP. [/SUP]
 
The US Constitution begins "We the people of..." and obviously applies to Americans. The Declaration is a voice for people living under colonial oppression to follow, but it quickly boils down to specific American grievances.
 
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Conn-long-gun-rules-changing-April-1-5361587.php



MIDDLETOWN, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut State Police are reminding firearms owners that state regulations on long guns will change Wednesday.

Troopers say that beginning April 1 long guns cannot be sold or transferred without one of the following documents: a permit to carry pistols or revolvers, an eligibility certificate for pistols or revolvers or a long gun eligibility certificate.

State police say those documents also will allow people to buy ammunition. Anyone who wants to buy ammunition and not additional firearms will only be required to obtain an ammunition certificate.

Also beginning Wednesday, hunting licenses will no longer be accepted for the purchase of long guns.

All permits and certificates can be applied for at state police headquarters in Middletown.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
Yes, my words, and I think them valid.

http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/enemycombatants.pdf

This is not to say I think the Bush admin was evil in its application of prior case law when dealing with enemy combatants, only that I believe they had it wrong.
Click to expand...

son, the constitution as ratified by our founders offers no protections to people other than american citizens....the 14th amendment has been deliberately misconstrued to provide protections to peoples not citizens within our borders but a. that is not the document of our founding fathers and b. as stated that was not the understanding of those who drafted and signed the 14th amendment into law and c. the involvement of the cts in this matter was a constitutional usurpation of the presidents executive branch authority....this nation was and is still at war with a global jihadist movement, not the conventional enemy that enables us to declare war, of course we don't bother with that constitutional requirement anymore now do we....still bush as commander and chief was well within his authority to conduct this war as he saw fit so long as those imprisoned were not us citizens....all that i have said is that the constitution of our founders does not provide protections to anyone other than american citizens....i guess you are arguing that a constitutional argument was made and my response is that he never should have made one in the first place because the constitution simply does not provide protections for non citizens and does not proscribe the ways and means by which the commander and chief must execute war....the limiting power of course is the legislature, free to pull the plug by eliminating funding and that is how the system should have worked...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top