Discussion:
Gun Control? What do you think is needed of anything????
(too old to reply)
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-05-19 15:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
When people talk about Gun Control and if they support it many say
yes but don't have the same meaning to it.
I'd support expanded background checks within limits and a judge
being able to take guns from the mentally ill after due process.
Also a requirment for gun safes.
What do you think is needed of anything????
Given the wording of the Second Amendment, what makes you think that
the government has any authority to implement any weapons control at
all?
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).
"To REGULATE Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes."
---> Regulate there means government control. <---
"To coin money, REGULATE the value thereof, and
of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights
and measures"
---> Regulate there means government control. <---
"A well REGULATED militia"
---> Regulat3 there means government control. <---
Go back and take another English course. That statement is not a grant
of government control, it states the reason why citizens need to be
armed.
OK lets use your definition... the next part is WHO is to regulate?

It doesn't say Congress has that power like it does in the previous
examples you quoted from Article I Section 8.....

The question falls back to Article I Section 8 where it does assign the
power to regulate the Militia and limits that power to regulate by
stating what power the United States has. But the 2nd Amendment does no
more than suggest that the militia be well trained with their arms and
that's why the *right of the people* to keep and bear arms shall NOT be
infringed. Regulating the militia when called up, delegates no power
over the 2nd amendment. It states Facts and it limits the United States
Congress and the States by reaffirming the FACT that no power to
regulate *the RIGHT of the people* was delegated to anyone but the people.



Article I
Section 8. *The Congress shall have Power To*

["""""To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing *such Part of them as may be employed in the Service* of
the *United States* , *reserving to the States respectively* , the
*Appointment of the Officers* , *and the Authority of training* the
*Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress* ;""""""]


REMEMBER that powers NOT delegated to the United States are NOT powers
of the United States, so *there is NO power to regulate* that is
delegated, just the powers listed are the powers the Congress has. And
no where does it say they can ban firearms. And the 2nd amendment
doesn't delegate the power to regulate, it simply states a fact.
Congress can prescribe training for the Militia, NOT for "the people"
and the people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms and it shall NOT be
infringed by congress or the President or the Supreme Court (also called
the United States). Which Ironically allows Congress to NOT arm the
MILITIA with Machine guns and AR-15's for the Militia but it doesn't
allow CONGRESS or the States to ban them for use by *the people* .

["""""Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States (congress or the President
or the Supreme Court) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""""""]

That means Executive Orders or even Supreme Court Rulings. And *the*
*power* to regulate the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms,
doesn't exist because it was NOT delegated to the United States. That
means the Supreme Court can't step in and delegate it either. They have
no delegated power to delegate any powers to the United States

The United States can control some actions of the Militia but can't
abolish it without an Amendment that repeals it. That means the Militia
lives on. And *the RIGHT of the people* to keep and bear arms is NOT
hinged on the Militia, nor is the Militia limited to getting it's guns
from the Federal Government.
--
That's Karma
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-05-19 15:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
When people talk about Gun Control and if they support it many say yes
but don't have the same meaning to it.
I'd support expanded background checks within limits and a judge being
able to take guns from the mentally ill after due process. Also a
requirment for gun safes.
What do you think is needed of anything????
Given the wording of the Second Amendment, what makes you think that the
government has any authority to implement any weapons control at all?
There's nothing in its wording that denies the government any authority to implement any weapons control, and you can't find such wording no matter how hard you try.
To those of us who understand plain English, to "control" the possession
of weapons is to infringe on the right to "keep and bear arms".
There is no infringing. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right you get, not what kind of arms.
The RIGHT is to all arms since there is no limit in the RIGHT and it
can't be infringed. And in the end there is NO POWER DELEGATED to the
United States to limit the arms or to violate the RIGHT to keep and bear
arms. That makes the last word that of the people who use the RIGHT.

You can go and buy the guns you feel are needed and NOT buy the ones you
don't need. It's called *Choice* and I think Liberals have heard of it.

Meanwhile the Liberals running the schools chose not to use any to
protect the children and they also choose to allow human life in the
uterus to be killed and invite AIDS and Ebola to our Nation.... so I
say that Liberalism is the cause of plenty of American deaths. Maybe we
should limit/Regulate Liberalism out of existence?

Why should we care what Liberal say, they're the ones ultimately
responsible for so many of our progeny not becoming adults. What is the
difference between killing them in the classroom after 16 years or in
their first 12 weeks in a uterus? It's a human life killed, and when
you try to justify it by the "time" when you did it, it holds no moral
value.

Eternity ends at conception.... Time then becomes a finite resource. A
resource that ends when eternity begins again. Your life is but a hole
in the eternity.

So 16 days 16 weeks or 16 years, there's never a good time to kill your
kids or to give up on keeping them safe. You are supposed to protect
them at all ages. Why only cry for them when they're outside a uterus?
--
That's Karma
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-05-22 14:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 May 2018 07:35:08 -0500, David Hartung
When people talk about Gun Control and if they support it many
say yes but don't have the same meaning to it.
I'd support expanded background checks within limits and a judge
being able to take guns from the mentally ill after due process.
Also a requirment for gun safes.
What do you think is needed of anything????
Given the wording of the Second Amendment, what makes you think
that the government has any authority to implement any weapons
control at all?
That is why we have a Supreme Court.
What makes you think the Supreme Court has any authority over what
the Constitutional allows or doesn't allow?
Marbury v Madison, look it up.
Sorry, I can't seem to find the clause in the Constitution where it
authorizes the Judicial Branch to assume powers that it wasn't
granted.
Cool. That means cities are free to enact
their own gun control laws free from Supreme
Court interference, right?
That could well be true if you roll back the Supreme Court lies.

But then the 2nd amendment doesn't allow for delegating the power to the
United states and it does deny it to the States by making sure that the
RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, is a RIGHT of the people and
NOT a a power that is passively delegated to the States.

No federal laws or State laws infringing are legal but are City laws
constitutional to infringe on your RIGHT, as they are possibly of the
people.... I would say *NO* since an amendment can't be changed or
repealed or given up without an ARTICLE V, amendment, and a city of
people can't amend the U.S. Constitution. They would need to amend the
U.S. Constitution. Because as it stands it's the people that have the
RIGHT and they can't give it up or refuse the RIGHT, but they can decide
NOT to participate in that RIGHT by not buying a gun.

Seems like Liberals would call that *CHOICE* and accept it.
--
That's Karma
Loading...