Now do you suppose the Founding Fathers envisioned

QP! said:
Bought what is undeniable fact and clear is that American homes, become FAR LESS safe when a person brings a gun in to the home, thiking they are trying to protect their families.

There are very few families who genuinely need a gun to counter the type of threat you fear, and FAR MORE who, if they actually CARE about their family should recognize the threat they are exposing them to.

But many people are not reality based so they care about their perception, over facts.
Click to expand...

in reality, your 'theory' is called 'living in ignorance'..............either guns are a major problem everywhere and need to be confiscated, or nobody really needs a gun because the threat is just not that great..........you can't have it both ways.
 
Nordberg said:
It was the time of flintlocks and guns that could not destroy masses of people.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_the_American_Revolution They had no idea that weapons would change so much.
Click to expand...

their intent wasn't about how bad weapons could get, but what would be needed to defend against their new government, should it become necessary. So they were less interested in how lethal weapons could be, but could they be used against them in the future.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the Constitution was written by we the people. It is pure idiocy to believe that the framers would give the government the power to define their own limits and restrictions. The courts do not have power to define and redefine those limits.
Click to expand...

Yet, the founders believed the Constitution had the power of judicial review. Ever read Federalist #78?

Without it, there is nothing limiting the power of the legislative, executive or judicial power of the central government. Your claim that the states have this power has no validity and is illogical and impractical.
 
RB 60 said:
...gun control laws do not work.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but that is a political decision and irrelevant to whether the federal and state governments have the power to regulate weapons.

Would you limit violent felons or 12 year-olds from owning weapons?

Laws against murder don't work, either, but the public supports them.
 
Flash said:
Yet, the founders believed the Constitution had the power of judicial review. Ever read Federalist #78?

Without it, there is nothing limiting the power of the legislative, executive or judicial power of the central government. Your claim that the states have this power has no validity and is illogical and impractical.
Click to expand...
there is a very thin line between what's within the bounds of the constitution and whats not. as an example, does the constitution recognize that business has constitutional rights? you can say no, but the courts gave it to them.........

the states do have some validity, though the two parties are trying their hardest to remove it permanently. Can a state declare themselves a sanctuary state and refuse to enforce immigration law? Can a state declare themselves a 2nd Amendment sanctuary and refuse to enforce federal gun laws?
 
Cypress said:
There's no constitutional right to high capacity ammunition mags.
That is a battlefield innovation that has no legitimate civilian use. High capacity ammunition mags can be outlawed tomorrow without running afoul of the second amendment.
Click to expand...

That is why those bans are legal in about 15 states.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there is a very thin line between what's within the bounds of the constitution and whats not. as an example, does the constitution recognize that business has constitutional rights? you can say no, but the courts gave it to them.........
Click to expand...

That was the result although I'm not sure the court specifically gave constitutional rights to corporations. It prohibits states from impairing contracts and that would apply to any entity.

That is similar to free speech. It does not specifically say that right only applies to citizens (as some of our JPP posters claim). But, if Congress cannot restrict speech, that would mean it cannot restrict the rights of any person (or corporation) to that speech.
 
Flash said:
That was the result although I'm not sure the court specifically gave constitutional rights to corporations. It prohibits states from impairing contracts and that would apply to any entity.

That is similar to free speech. It does not specifically say that right only applies to citizens (as some of our JPP posters claim). But, if Congress cannot restrict speech, that would mean it cannot restrict the rights of any person (or corporation) to that speech.
Click to expand...

so you would then be in agreement with the citizens united case opinion?

try another scenario.......it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit all alcohol........and another one to make it legal again. So what is your opinion that congress can create an agency with the power to simply define a naturally occurring plant as a specific class of drug and make it illegal through a legislative act and NOT a constitutional amendment?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Can a state declare themselves a sanctuary state and refuse to enforce immigration law? Can a state declare themselves a 2nd Amendment sanctuary and refuse to enforce federal gun laws?
Click to expand...

States have no responsibility for enforcing immigration law. Many doubt the authority of states to do so which Texas will soon find out if they pass the pending law.
 
29d77121aa40e28c.png
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you would then be in agreement with the citizens united case opinion?

try another scenario.......it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit all alcohol........and another one to make it legal again. So what is your opinion that congress can create an agency with the power to simply define a naturally occurring plant as a specific class of drug and make it illegal through a legislative act and NOT a constitutional amendment?
Click to expand...

Yes, I favor the Citizens United. I don't want government telling citizens where it can spend its money.

It did not prohibit all alcohol, only the manufacture and selling. The federal government has expanded its power over criminal legislation to an excessive degree.

If you are talking about marijuana the difference is in the expansion of the interstate commerce clause from the times of prohibition to today. Being able to regulate interstate commerce is much less powerful than regulating anything that "affects" such commerce.
 
Flash said:
Yes, I favor the Citizens United. I don't want government telling citizens where it can spend its money.

It did not prohibit all alcohol, only the manufacture and selling. The federal government has expanded its power over criminal legislation to an excessive degree.

If you are talking about marijuana the difference is in the expansion of the interstate commerce clause from the times of prohibition to today. Being able to regulate interstate commerce is much less powerful than regulating anything that "affects" such commerce.
Click to expand...

citizens united is a straight up fascism decision.

it need to be overturned right away.

citizens united is the pathway to corporate run totalitarianism.
 
Flash said:
States have no responsibility for enforcing immigration law. Many doubt the authority of states to do so which Texas will soon find out if they pass the pending law.
Click to expand...

Texas House passes bill allowing police to arrest migrants - New York Post
https://nypost.com › 2023 › 10 › 26 › news › texas-house-passes-bill-allowing-police-to-arrest-migrants
1 day agoTexas is one step closer to giving police the authority to arrest migrants and deport them from the US after State Republicans approved a new bill Thursday. The proposal, known as House Bill 4 ...


god bless texas.
 
Flash said:
It did not prohibit all alcohol, only the manufacture and selling. The federal government has expanded its power over criminal legislation to an excessive degree.

If you are talking about marijuana the difference is in the expansion of the interstate commerce clause from the times of prohibition to today. Being able to regulate interstate commerce is much less powerful than regulating anything that "affects" such commerce.
Click to expand...

1. and transportation. you can't possess it if you can't manufacture it. so, essentially, it prohibited all alcohol. It should also be noted that it was applied to the citizenry in much the same way that jim crow gun laws were.

2. this is semantics. the interstate commerce clause was expanded in order to regulate guns...and then applied to marijuana. the founders would never have given the federal government the power to prohibit free citizens from owning or possessing anything, yet now it's used to keep one from possessing a naturally occurring weed or to regulate commerce, even intrastate commerce that MIGHT affect interstate commerce......and in gun laws like any part or material that has been transported in interstate commerce. you don't think that clause is being abused?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so, then, states have no responsibility for enforcing federal gun control laws........right?
Click to expand...

There is a difference. Immigration is a federal function while gun regulation is a concurrent power exercised by both federal and state governments.

I'm not sure of the role of states in enforcing federal gun regulations although that is probably the main responsibility of federal law enforcement. Many times agreements exist between state and federal officials allowing cooperative operations.

I remember when the federal government tried to make local sheriff's departments administer the background check program it was challenged and found unconstitutional. So, I guess the federal government cannot require state officials to assist.
 
Flash said:
There is a difference. Immigration is a federal function while gun regulation is a concurrent power exercised by both federal and state governments.

I'm not sure of the role of states in enforcing federal gun regulations although that is probably the main responsibility of federal law enforcement. Many times agreements exist between state and federal officials allowing cooperative operations.

I remember when the federal government tried to make local sheriff's departments administer the background check program it was challenged and found unconstitutional. So, I guess the federal government cannot require state officials to assist.
Click to expand...

Texas House passes bill allowing police to arrest migrants - New York Post
https://nypost.com › 2023 › 10 › 26 › news › texas-house-passes-bill-allowing-police-to-arrest-migrants
1 day agoTexas is one step closer to giving police the authority to arrest migrants and deport them from the US after State Republicans approved a new bill Thursday. The proposal, known as House Bill 4 ...


god bless texas.
 
Flash said:
There is a difference. Immigration is a federal function while gun regulation is a concurrent power exercised by both federal and state governments.

I'm not sure of the role of states in enforcing federal gun regulations although that is probably the main responsibility of federal law enforcement. Many times agreements exist between state and federal officials allowing cooperative operations.

I remember when the federal government tried to make local sheriff's departments administer the background check program it was challenged and found unconstitutional. So, I guess the federal government cannot require state officials to assist.
Click to expand...

you see the conundrum, right? that is why I agree with nullification. I believe that federal law enforcement should be forced to ask for help from state agencies in enforcing federal law, and if the state refuses, then the feds cannot enforce. It's why the founders believed that the federal government could not interfere with the policing in any state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top