Now do you suppose the Founding Fathers envisioned

[Into the Night]

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.

Irrelevant. Presentism fallacy. Discard of history. Apparently you are not aware of:
* the number killed in wars using muskets.
* the puckle gun (a machine gun).
* the cannon.
* the number killed in war using swords, bows, and arrows.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon, including any gun.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Good call.

 

[Into the Night]

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

The Constitution does not review anything.

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.

It is not a 'claim'. It is what it is. Only the States have the authority to interpret or change the Constitution. No court has this authority. You just want an oligarchy.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon.
In some places it is traditional for a 12 year hold to receive his first gun and be taught how to use it. I'm not talking about a BB gun.

 

[Into the Night]

That is why those bans are legal in about 15 states.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun. The bans are NOT LEGAL.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Paradox. Irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

States have no responsibility for enforcing immigration law.

All States have the authority to enforce immigration law.

Many doubt the authority of states to do so which Texas will soon find out if they pass the pending law.

ALL States have that authority.

 

[Into the Night]

It did not prohibit all alcohol, only the manufacture and selling.

Paradox. Irrational.

The federal government has expanded its power over criminal legislation to an excessive degree.

There is no such thing as 'criminal legislation'.

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.

Learn what 'regulate' means. It does NOT mean 'ban'.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

The Dim is big on word games.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Immigration can be both a State and/or a federal function.
It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.

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.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.

I remember when the federal government tried to make local sheriff's departments administer the background check program it was challenged and found unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional to force someone to witness against yourself, or to ban or limit any gun.

So, I guess the federal government cannot require state officials to assist.

False dichotomy fallacy. There are times when they can, and there are times when they cannot.

 

[Into the Night]

Many are questioning whether Texas has the authority to carry out federal functions.

Immigration is both a federal and State function.

I think it is largely for publicity purposes to put pressure on federal officials since I doubt law enforcement wants to expand their responsibilities and expenses.

They ALREADY ARE expanding their expenses to do the job the federal government apparently doesn't want to do.

The Texas state troopers and reserve units on the border reportedly have little to do and the border patrol complains that they are just in the way.

The border patrol welcomes the help. The only agents that think Texas troopers are in the way are those CUTTING THE BARRIERS that Texas puts up that SHOULD BE THERE ANYWAY.

 

[Into the Night]

I doubt the founders believed that since the purpose of the constitutional convention was to allow more direct central control over the citizens in the form of taxes, raising an army, coining money, regulating commerce.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You only get to speak for you.

Under Washington the Whiskey Rebellion was about local farmers resisting federal authorities seeking to collect the tax.

So?

You have largely negated the function of the central government if any state can nullify federal policy. We would be back to the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation which is the reason the Constitution was written.

False dichotomy fallacy. Any State can nullify any federal policy that does not conform to the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

control over citizens in the form of taxes? what year was the 16th Amendment ratified? and why do you believe that the constitution was written to enact more control over the people when the founders fought for freedom?



wouldn't the center piece of the constitutional power of the federal government then be 'only those prescribed powers'???? immigration is most certainly within the constitutional power of the feds, but gun laws would not be, if they weren't perverting and torturing the hell out of the commerce clause. especially given that the 2nd is amending the constitution, altering the commerce powers?

The Whiskey tax was not an income tax.

The Dim doesn't understand what 'regulate' means. He thinks it means 'ban'.

 

[Into the Night]

What purpose are they serving? Talk to some of the national guard on the border. They are bored out of their minds. I'm not sure the state has the power to deport people, but it should be an interesting legal battle.

Texas has all the authority it needs to deport people.

 

[Flash]

Immigration is both a federal and State function.

Immigration is a federal function by court interpretation but you say the courts have no power to interpret the document. Immigration is not included in the Constitution. It is a liberal interpretation by those wanting greater federal power.

 

[Flash]

False dichotomy fallacy. There are times when they can, and there are times when they cannot.

Please explain to us when it can and when it cannot.

 

[Flash]

Paradox. Irrational.

But true. Our constitutional rights apply to all persons in the U. S. regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

 

[Into the Night]

The constitutional convention was called to improve the Articles by giving the central government more power to raise revenue directly from the population, recruit a military directly from the population, give itself the power to coin money and regulate interstate commerce.

Learn what 'regulate' means. It does NOT mean 'ban' or 'limit'. It means to 'make regular' (or consistent).
The republic cannot give itself ANYTHING. EVERY authority it has must be specified in the Constitution, and that Constitution is NOT owned by the agency it creates (in this case the Federal government).

It certainly added many provisions to limit the power of the central government but the overall purpose was to increase its power.

No. It was to clarify it.

The Constitution gives the central government the power to control naturalization (citizenship) but contains no specific provisions for regulating immigration.

Paradox. Irrational. See Article I, $8-9.

It is one of those powers not listed but accepted by conservatives who otherwise don't like expanded unlisted federal power.

It is listed.

How did the 2nd alter the commerce power?

It doesn't.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.

 

[Into the Night]

the federal government didn't get taxes directly from the population until the 16th.

They did, mostly in the form of property taxes. The 16th amendment only provides for the taxing of 'incomes' (the bulk of the IRS tax code is spent trying to define what 'income' actually means!).

it specifically tells the federal government that they have no power over the arms of the people.

Correct. That also applies to the States and always has.

There are some questions about this during ratification, of course, with some saying that the 2nd wasn't needed because the Constitution doesn't give the new central government any power over firearms..........but i've already proven that they didn't need to have that to usurp that power. Even with 'shall not be infringed', they still usurp power over the arms of the people

That they do, illegally. For example, the BATF is unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

Please explain to us when it can and when it cannot.

I am not going to quote every niggly case to you.