Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can present all the facts you wish, the anti's will not be convinced. It's in their nature to ignore logic, and instead embrace their emotional opinion.
This is pretty much the end result of all of these stupid gun laws.
The 10th Amendment, cannot be involved in 2nd Amendment issues.
The amendment dictates it is "the people" Not even Citizen is used here. From the beginning, all immigrants had the right to self defense and to be part of the militia.
If the state passed such a law, that would be "the people" from the federal point of view, because the Constitution was originally construed as being a constraint solely upon the federal government, not the states.
That's why there are no federal elections under the Constitution--all elections are at the state level.
The Bill of Rights was never applied to the states until after the Civil War--the Supreme Court had rebuffed efforts to apply the Constitution to the states more than once prior to the Civil War. Even then, it has been applied only on a case-by-case basis...in fact, the 2nd Amendment not applied to the States until a few years ago.
If the state passed such a law, that would be "the people" from the federal point of view, because the Constitution was originally construed as being a constraint solely upon the federal government, not the states.
That's why there are no federal elections under the Constitution--all elections are at the state level.
The Bill of Rights was never applied to the states until after the Civil War--the Supreme Court had rebuffed efforts to apply the Constitution to the states more than once prior to the Civil War. Even then, it has been applied only on a case-by-case basis...in fact, the 2nd Amendment not applied to the States until a few years ago.
Nope. Read the 10th slowly.
To the States respectively, or to the people.. The 2nd amendment already dictates who that falls to. That would be the people, not just citizens.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If you have an endowed right to life, and thus the right to defend that life, it is not a government regulated privilege, nor subject to taxation or infringement. That right precedes the USCON and second amendment.
HOWEVER,
If you have consented to be governed, waived your endowments, then the government does have the legitimate authority to regulate the manner in which you bear arms. (Ex: militia duty of all male citizens, etc, etc)
. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.â€
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.†[militia duty]
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Articles of Confederation, VI. (1777)
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Of course, mandatory civic duties are only applicable to voluntary citizens, who consented to be governed. Non-citizen American nationals retain their endowed rights, etc., etc.
Nope. Read the 10th slowly.
To the States respectively, or to the people.. The 2nd amendment already dictates who that falls to. That would be the people, not just citizens.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution, when written, did not dip into the internal governance of the states until after the Civil War. As I said, that matter went to the Supreme Court more than once. You are retro-interpreting the Constitution based on 150 years of federal dominance over state affairs, not as the Founding Fathers actually saw intended it. The several American states would never have signed a document that gave the federal government sovereignty over their state governance.
The Constitution, when written, did not dip into the internal governance of the states until after the Civil War. As I said, that matter went to the Supreme Court more than once. You are retro-interpreting the Constitution based on 150 years of federal dominance over state affairs, not as the Founding Fathers actually saw intended it. The several American states would never have signed a document that gave the federal government sovereignty over their state governance.
Read the 10th... The power in the 2nd amendment has already been established. The 10th cannot effect the 2nd. Nor the 2nd effect the 10th.
See: McDonald v. Chicago.
Read the 10th... The power in the 2nd amendment has already been established. The 10th cannot effect the 2nd. Nor the 2nd effect the 10th.
See: McDonald v. Chicago.
I said this twice: "The Constitution, when written, did not dip into the internal governance of the states until after the Civil War."
Did you not understand the English that I wrote?
If so, why did you present to me a 2010 case?
I had also said: "Even then, it has been applied only on a case-by-case basis...in fact, the 2nd Amendment not applied to the States until a few years ago."
And then you presented a 2010 case that proved my point.
Because these or the very guns we would need against a Tyrant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945
I have always had guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. What I can not understand is why anyone, outside law enforcement, needs assault type weapons with large capacity magazines. Those are made to do one thing, inflict a large number of injuries in a short period of time.
I know the NRA guys will say it is their right, but I can not own an operational cannon, so why should I be able to buy one of these ?
The second amendment is not about owning guns for hunting and self defense. The second amendment is about stopping Tyranny from a Rogue government. These or the very guns we would need to defeatsuch a Tyrant. Would you use hunting rifles against the governments automatic m16s? This is the real reason they want to ban them all. So we could not use them against there rogue government. Also all so called assault rifles are used in very few shooting and so it not about safety it about control.
Last edited by Howie535; 03-02-2017 at 01:53 PM..
Reason: add new Thought
True, but both go against the processes our country has set up. It seems strange to me that those who are fighting for the rights of illegal immigrants have no concern about American citizens being stripped of their rights without due process.
I think lax gun laws are a knee jerk reaction to gun control.
I agree with the OP, but I realize that sometimes politics has a way of overreacting to make a statement.
For example Texas's "open carry" laws were obviously a direct result of Obama's attempt at gun restrictions. As a law abiding citizen with no criminal history or mental issues, I'm ok with registering every bullet I buy. However that being said, I think I should be able to shoot an old car with a grenade launcher if I want to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because these or the very guns we would need against a Tyrant.
