SmarterthanYou
rebel
the courts USURPED that power in marbury, thus it is null and void
The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable.
- Thread starter Rune
- Start date
the courts USURPED that power in marbury, thus it is null and void
Agreed. If states changed their constitution or laws there would be nothing in the U. S. Constitution that prohibited states from firearms restrictions.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and if the federal courts ruled according to their limitations, nothing prohibits states from enacting firearms laws except their own state courts.........or as a last resort, the people
We'll agree to disagree. What is indisputable is that Marbury v. Madison is the law of the land, and courts make determinations about whether laws are constitutional. They do so because the Constitution lacks specifics. For the purposes of the Second Amendment, what group makes up 'the people'? What does it mean to 'bear arms'. What is the definition of arms? The idea that there is an objectively agreed upon definition of all these things is nonsense.
Yes, you can technically own one. They can't be manufactured and sold. But thanks for providing the evidence for my argument. There are limits. Period.
Yes, if the leaders at the time believed the courts were exceeding their power they could have taken action. I'm not aware of any efforts to overturn Marbury (although I've never really researched it).
And, it seems only logical. Without the power of judicial review there is nothing to prevent the executive or legislative branches from exceeding their constitutional powers. Without a check on those powers the Constitution loses any meaning.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then you've never really read the constitution. marbury can't be the law of the land unless you take the whole entire opinion.........which would also include any law contrary to the constitution is null and void, but then that would also mean YOU knowing whats constitutional and whats not instead of needing 9 black robed tyrants to tell you
I applaud your apparent effort to learn.
No, I proved you were wrong.
Nice try.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
It's truly disappointing that every time I see a thread like this most people don't realize that the Second Amendment is specifically about weapons useful on the battlefield. Peruse the Internet and you understand why slavery is ubiquitous throughout human history.
You mean prisoners who lost all their rights because of their choices?
It always amazes me that so many are willing to give up liberty for false security.
If they are for 'use on the battlefield', why the fuck do you need to carry them around with you?
Stupid argument.
Often we hear in discussions on limits to the 2nd amendment from those who favor greater constitutional restriction suggesting that those who support the right to own so called "assault weapons" must also by default support owning "nukes" and other devices.... I would like to address that once and for all and give you the basis why that argument is faulty given the framers intent, and philosophy of liberty and the US Constitution.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants -Thomas Jefferson
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws -John Adams
So now, it is clear the founding fathers believed we should have access to every weapon available for defense of self and nation. So the argument comes up, does that mean they thought we should have access to nukes, et al?
Lets think about it...
The founding fathers drew thier inspiration from John Locke... "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions."
Again I give you Thomas Jefferson - "The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless."
So what does this all mean? Well lets put it in modern perspective... You have a right to defend yourself with effective tools for this purpose, but you may not molest, attack, or infringe on another who is not attacking you first.... Ok... we got that.... what does that mean? It means that said tool should be able to be controlled so that it does not molest, attack, or infringe on the right of another who is not attacking you first...
Therefore, all semi automatic weapons, pistols, rifles, even so called "assault rifles", one pull of the trigger per bullet, each shot is a conscious effort. "i shoot that, I shoot that," ie you are making the choice to shoot that which is offending your liberty with each conscious pull of the trigger are covered under the 2nd amendment.
Clearly, this falls in line with what our founding fathers believed.... Lets take the next level of weapons, Fully automatic....
One can argue that these weapons are indiscriminate that, you are not consciously "shooting that", but "shooting in that direction multiple shots with one pull of the trigger".... Each shot is not a conscious effort to defend you or your life, They have a much larger chance of "infringing" on a non belligerent aggressor (read innocent citizen), than a semi automatic rifle....
ok so there is some argument for and against machine gun ownership in the US. I get that....Now here is where it becomes apparent why a nuclear weapon and other indiscriminate weapons are not covered by this amendment....
a Nuke, kills innocents, causes harm for years, it's not just those you are defending yourself against. So they are out. obviously...
this would include also, land mines, grenades, rocket launcers, "bazzookas", chemical weapons, or anything the opponents of the 2nd amendment can think of that are indiscriminate..So in conclusion:
Nukes are not covered by the 2nd for private citizens, because they are not discriminant enough for use in self defense
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Only if it is made before 1986, and it may not be legal in the state you reside in, correct?
Yep. I'd also add that THIS is the very reason I used nuclear weapon as an example of an 'arm' you can't 'bear'. It was described as ridiculous, but as soon as I took it down a notch, it became an idiotic semantics discussion instead of focusing on the OP. You cannot purchase a fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1986. So both examples are relevant.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
given that little bit of info, that a civilian can own an automatic manufactured before may 19, 1986, but prohibited from owning it if manufactured on may 20, 1986...............seems like a very arbitrary and unconstitutional law, right???