• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Tucker Case said:
Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.
Click to expand...
How so?

The states cannot violate the constitution; no part of the 'states rights' or 10th amendment arguments assume that they can. If the constitution specifies that certain rights are protected from action against them by the federal government, and then the constitution then expands these protections to action sby the states, the only power lost is that of the states to infringe on the rights of the people.

How is that bad? Isn't the purpose of government to protect our rights from those that would infringe them?
 
Tucker Case said:
And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
Click to expand...

I wish more people had your intellectual honesty, Tucker. Personally, I cannot abide the hypocritical nature of these recent decisions, because I see the slippery slope that such an incoherent jurisprudence can lead to. Scalia is a very persuasive jurist, but when he "uses his powers for evil" so to speak, it undermines both his commitment to his textualist philosophy and the foundation of the decision itself, which in turn undermines the existence of the right itself. This is not simply a question of ends justifying the means, but the means could at some point in the future come to endanger the end. While I support the outcome, I abhor the contradiction. If this decision was rooted in a "living Cosntitution" theory, no such hypocrisy would be necessary.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
This is where you have a legitimate arugment about Judicial activism. The bill of rights was intended as a limitation upon the Federal government. The 14th allowed them to be "incorporated" to the states.

There is a great deal of irony in this whole debate.

Originally, the idea that the state or local governments would try to disarm their own citizens was a pretty absurd notion. They felt the greater risk of this would be from the federal government, not state and local governments.

Where the irony comes in is that the 2nd was, in part, about preventing the Feds from having too much authority over the States and the people. The presumption, as described in Federalist 46, was that an armed populous could combine to create a much larger fighting force than the Feds could gather (about 25 times larger) under the supervision of the State governments.

Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.

This is why this ruling has been tearing me up, personally. On one hand, I'm extatic that my rights are no longer being infringed by my local government. On the other hand, my anti-federalist inclination leads me to abor the ruling as it is just a further example of federal authority extending further in scope and the authority of th estates being superceded by federal authority.

I've admitted to having a hypocritical stance on this particular issue in the past. If I thought for a second that not incorporating the 2nd could result in de-incorporation of oter ammendmets and result in a reduction in federal authority, I'd be more than willing to forgo my individual right to bare arms for the greater good of the nation (Obviously as someone who claims to hold Anti-federalists views, I believe that a strong central government is generally detrimental.)

But I realize that this isn't going to happen at this point. It's too far gone and there are too few people who hold views like mine. Even your "extreme" small-government types aren't nearly as extreme about it as I am.

So I basically admit that I'm being a hypocrite on this particular subject. As I have in the past. My thinking is that if my worldview has no chance, I might as well try to keep my individual rights from being infringed in the process.

And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand where your hypocrisy is. I'm all for state's rights, but not when it comes to removing federal constitutional rights like freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, etc.
 
Goobieman said:
How so?

The states cannot violate the constitution; no part of the 'states rights' or 10th amendment arguments assume that they can. If the constitution specifies that certain rights are protected from action against them by the federal government, and then the constitution then expands these protections to action sby the states, the only power lost is that of the states to infringe on the rights of the people.

How is that bad? Isn't the purpose of government to protect our rights from those that would infringe them?
Click to expand...

The people who would infringe on our rights are the Government. :lol:

when I say that incorporation is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states, I mean that the wording of the 14th expanded federal authority and weakened State authority.
 
Tucker Case said:
The people who would infringe on our rights are the Government.
Click to expand...
Sometimes. But them we have several layers of government -- who, if not the Federal government, keeps the states from infringing on our rights?

when I say that incorporation is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states, I mean that the wording of the 14th expanded federal authority and weakened State authority.
Click to expand...
This is true if you accept the idea that the states have the authority to infringe on peopel's rights.
 
rivrrat said:
I'm not sure I understand where your hypocrisy is. I'm all for state's rights, but not when it comes to removing federal constitutional rights like freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm being hypocritical because I reject the notion of "federal constitutional rights". I see the BoR as what it was intended to be: a Restriction of Federal Authority, not a "granting of rights".

I hold many of the same views espoused by the anti-federalists. I'm looking back in hindsight regarding their initial concerns over the adoption of th econstitution, and I see their fears not only totally justified, but that the majority of those fears they had have come to fruition.

The arguments of people like Madison, who wanted a limited federal government but still supported the adoption Constitution, have been proven wrong (and these were teh one's that ended up swaying the anti-federalists in the end).

The Hamiltonian, powerful federal government, mindset ended up winning.

The Bill of Rights came into existence to appease the anti-federalists, who feared that the constitution created a Federal government that was too strong and had too much authority. The BoR wasn't meant to increase federal authority over the states by denying the States powers. It was designed to decrease Federal authority over the states and the people by denying the federal government certain powers.

Incorporation of the Bill of rights not only contradicts that very clear intention of the BoR, it actually causes the exact opposite of what they were intended to do to happen.

It's impossible for me to honestly reconcile my political views with any instance of incorporation of the bill of rights. Even if I personally agree that nobody should be denied those rights. My personal beliefs and my political beliefs (at a federal level) are often in conflict. It's a natural byproduct of my political ideology.
 
Tucker Case said:
This is where you have a legitimate arugment about Judicial activism. The bill of rights was intended as a limitation upon the Federal government. The 14th allowed them to be "incorporated" to the states.

There is a great deal of irony in this whole debate.

Originally, the idea that the state or local governments would try to disarm their own citizens was a pretty absurd notion. They felt the greater risk of this would be from the federal government, not state and local governments.

Where the irony comes in is that the 2nd was, in part, about preventing the Feds from having too much authority over the States and the people. The presumption, as described in Federalist 46, was that an armed populous could combine to create a much larger fighting force than the Feds could gather (about 25 times larger) under the supervision of the State governments.

Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.

This is why this ruling has been tearing me up, personally. On one hand, I'm extatic that my rights are no longer being infringed by my local government. On the other hand, my anti-federalist inclination leads me to abor the ruling as it is just a further example of federal authority extending further in scope and the authority of th estates being superceded by federal authority.

I've admitted to having a hypocritical stance on this particular issue in the past. If I thought for a second that not incorporating the 2nd could result in de-incorporation of oter ammendmets and result in a reduction in federal authority, I'd be more than willing to forgo my individual right to bare arms for the greater good of the nation (Obviously as someone who claims to hold Anti-federalists views, I believe that a strong central government is generally detrimental.)

But I realize that this isn't going to happen at this point. It's too far gone and there are too few people who hold views like mine. Even your "extreme" small-government types aren't nearly as extreme about it as I am.

So I basically admit that I'm being a hypocrite on this particular subject. As I have in the past. My thinking is that if my worldview has no chance, I might as well try to keep my individual rights from being infringed in the process.

And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
Click to expand...

Dam you tucker. I'm a bigger hypocrite than you. You shall be reported.:stop:
 
Goobieman said:
Sometimes. But them we have several layers of government -- who, if not the Federal government, keeps the states from infringing on our rights?
Click to expand...

The people of said states through their votes and their actions.


This is true if you accept the idea that the states have the authority to infringe on peopel's rights.
Click to expand...

I accept the idea that the people of a State have the authority and ability to grant that power to their State governments by way of their votes if they so choose. They also have the power to remove that power from their State govenrments by the same means.

The Federal governemtn merely guarantees them a republican form of government, which guarantees that they will always have this authority over their state Government so long as it remains in the Union.
 
Tucker Case said:
The Bill of Rights came into existence to appease the anti-federalists, who feared that the constitution created a Federal government that was too strong and had too much authority. The BoR wasn't meant to increase federal authority over the states by denying the States powers. It was designed to decrease Federal authority over the states and the people by denying the federal government certain powers.
Click to expand...
Yes. But as you know, the creation of thw 14th was in direct response to states abusing, infringing and ignoring the rights of (some of) their people. How do you suppose this be reconciled, if not for the expansion of the protections of the bill or rights?

That is, if the state abuses your rights, who else do you turn to if not the federal government?
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The people of said states through their votes and their actions.
Click to expand...
As you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.

I accept the idea that the people of a State have the authority and ability to grant that power to their State governments by way of their votes if they so choose. They also have the power to remove that power from their State govenrments by the same means.
Click to expand...
Again, as you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I wish more people had your intellectual honesty, Tucker. Personally, I cannot abide the hypocritical nature of these recent decisions, because I see the slippery slope that such an incoherent jurisprudence can lead to. Scalia is a very persuasive jurist, but when he "uses his powers for evil" so to speak, it undermines both his commitment to his textualist philosophy and the foundation of the decision itself, which in turn undermines the existence of the right itself. This is not simply a question of ends justifying the means, but the means could at some point in the future come to endanger the end. While I support the outcome, I abhor the contradiction. If this decision was rooted in a "living Cosntitution" theory, no such hypocrisy would be necessary.
Click to expand...


Along with the assertion that the 2A did not originally provide for an individual right to bear arms, this is utter nonsense.

The Founders were quite clear on the matter. The 2A is and always was intended to be an individual right.

What the Founders of the US said about guns:
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Click to expand...

On what is the militia:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment.

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
Click to expand...
 
Goshin said:
Along with the assertion that the 2A did not originally provide for an individual right to bear arms, this is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

You're a little late, I've already acknowledge elsewhere that the Second Amendment clearly protects an individual right rather than a collective one. However, the idea that it protects an individual right to self defense and hunting is what is actually utter nonsense. The quotations you provided from certain founding fathers are largely irrelevant to the discussion or taken out of context. The scope the Framers originally intended for the Second Amendment and how it has been historically understood are very clearly in support of a curtailment of federal government restrictions of the individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purpose and nothing more.
 
Guy Incognito said:
. However, the idea that it protects an individual right to self defense and hunting is what is actually utter nonsense. The quotations you provided from certain founding fathers are largely irrelevant to the discussion or taken out of context. The scope the Framers originally intended for the Second Amendment and how it has been historically understood are very clearly in support of a curtailment of federal government restrictions of the individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purpose and nothing more.
Click to expand...


BS. Read what they wrote and tell me they didn't support a right to self-defense.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm being hypocritical because I reject the notion of "federal constitutional rights". I see the BoR as what it was intended to be: a Restriction of Federal Authority, not a "granting of rights".

I hold many of the same views espoused by the anti-federalists. I'm looking back in hindsight regarding their initial concerns over the adoption of th econstitution, and I see their fears not only totally justified, but that the majority of those fears they had have come to fruition.

The arguments of people like Madison, who wanted a limited federal government but still supported the adoption Constitution, have been proven wrong (and these were teh one's that ended up swaying the anti-federalists in the end).

The Hamiltonian, powerful federal government, mindset ended up winning.

The Bill of Rights came into existence to appease the anti-federalists, who feared that the constitution created a Federal government that was too strong and had too much authority. The BoR wasn't meant to increase federal authority over the states by denying the States powers. It was designed to decrease Federal authority over the states and the people by denying the federal government certain powers.

Incorporation of the Bill of rights not only contradicts that very clear intention of the BoR, it actually causes the exact opposite of what they were intended to do to happen.

It's impossible for me to honestly reconcile my political views with any instance of incorporation of the bill of rights. Even if I personally agree that nobody should be denied those rights. My personal beliefs and my political beliefs (at a federal level) are often in conflict. It's a natural byproduct of my political ideology.
Click to expand...

*head assplodes*
 
Goshin said:
BS. Read what they wrote and tell me they didn't support a right to self-defense.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what I have been doing. I am in agreement with Tucker on a number of issues (where I differ from Tucker is that I have no philosophical objection to incorporation.), this right bear arms in self defense is not contained within the Constitution for no other reason than at the time it did not need to be. There was no danger of the right to bearing arms in self defense being infringed by the state, and even if they did this would have been seen as a valid exercise of state power. The Framers did see a need to protect the right to bear arms in self defense or for purposes of hunting/sport/etc because they could not envision a scenario where it would have been necessary. But the fact remains, such a right is simply not contained within the Second Amendment, nor was the creation of such a right the intent of the amendment. The Second Amendment had the singular purpose of limiting the federal government's ability to restrict the armament of the people of the several states, which served as a check on the federal government's power. The original intent of the Framers was to leave the regulation of arms to the States.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
That is precisely what I have been doing. I am in agreement with Tucker on a number of issues (where I differ from Tucker is that I have no philosophical objection to incorporation.), this right bear arms in self defense is not contained within the Constitution for no other reason than at the time it did not need to be. There was no danger of the right to bearing arms in self defense being infringed by the state, and even if they did this would have been seen as a valid exercise of state power. The Framers did see a need to protect the right to bear arms in self defense or for purposes of hunting/sport/etc because they could not envision a scenario where it would have been necessary. But the fact remains, such a right is simply not contained within the Second Amendment, nor was the creation of such a right the intent of the amendment. The Second Amendment had the singular purpose of limiting the federal government's ability to restrict the armament of the people of the several states, which served as a check on the federal government's power. The original intent of the Framers was to leave the regulation of arms to the States.
Click to expand...
Thing is, these days a State government can be just as invasive as it was feared the Federal government would be, and thus I think preventing state as well as federal power from eliminating or even severely restricting firearms is a good thing, overall.
 
The Mark said:
Thing is, these days a State government can be just as invasive as it was feared the Federal government would be, and thus I think preventing state as well as federal power from eliminating or even severely restricting firearms is a good thing, overall.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there. I think it is important to make the distinction that my disagreement with the Heller and McDonald decisions are with judicial philosophy, not the practical outcome of the case. If you want to protect an individual right to bear arms for self defense by appeal to the second amendment, you cannot do so under and "originalist" or "textualist" philosophy, but you can if you interpret the Constitution in light of modern values and sensibilities. I think this is the proper way to look at all judicial decisions, generally. The Constitutions grows and means different things from one generation to the next. It is impossible to reconcile an "originalist" interpretation with an Second Amendment individual right to bear arms in self defense, and anyone who claims to do so is misunderstanding history and doing violence to the original intent of the Framers.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No disagreement there. I think it is important to make the distinction that my disagreement with the Heller and McDonald decisions are with judicial philosophy, not the practical outcome of the case. If you want to protect an individual right to bear arms for self defense by appeal to the second amendment, you cannot do so under and "originalist" or "textualist" philosophy, but you can if you interpret the Constitution in light of modern values and sensibilities. I think this is the proper way to look at all judicial decisions, generally. The Constitutions grows and means different things from one generation to the next. It is impossible to reconcile an "originalist" interpretation with an Second Amendment individual right to bear arms in self defense, and anyone who claims to do so is misunderstanding history and doing violence to the original intent of the Framers.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.

The proper view of the Constitution is "what did the Founders intend?"

If you read what they had to say about firearms, you can be damn sure they intended to protect the right to self-defense, individual ownership of arms, as well as other considerations, unless you're going to claim that they didn't mean what they actually literally said.

FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
to be masters." (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)
Click to expand...

WikiAnswers - Founding fathers quotes on guns

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose rulers are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, 1787-1788).

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed" (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Way to oversimplify everything that Daly has said about gun regs....

Daly is part of the Mayor's Collation.

The Chicago law will be rewritten within the month. -- I agree there should never have been an all out ban.

California requires a fingerprint to purchase certain types of ammo.-- Chicago should implement that.
Click to expand...

why--do you think requiring people to have prescriptions before buying crack will end the drug wars?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The top one is older, that's it.

Functionally they are the exact same, bullet caliber is nearly identical but that makes no difference as far as the law is concerned.
Click to expand...

curio and relic license-50 years old I believe is the line
 
WhyteRash said:
agreed...
its much harder to get a driving liscense than to legally purchase a gun.
we should only need to sign our name, give the current address and wait a week before getting to legally drive.
Click to expand...

driving is not a fundamental right

many libs say guns should be treated like cars

great idea

my driver's license was obtained when I turned 16

It is good in all fifty states and many other nations

I don't need a license to buy a car

I don't need a license to operate a car on private property

There is no limit to how fast my car is capable of going or how many cars I own

I can own the same cars that police own-indeed I can own cars far more powerful than police cars

I can drive my car in any state
 
Guy Incognito said:
The trouble is that is isn't clear. It's actually very vague. There is a reason it took over two hundred years for the individual right to bear arms to come into existence. It's because reasonable people can disagree. A much better historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the collective right to bear arms. In order to provide for an effective militia, it is entirely reasonable to have laws that restrict personal gun ownership, for instance what if the state militia required all guns be kept in a militia storage facility for better access in time of war?

I have no problem with an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I do have a problem with hypocritical Justices who claim to want to follow the "original meaning" if the Constitution, but make decision like this that are flagrantly activist. If you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a living and growing thing, that's great. But Scalia, Thomas, Alito, they're all violating their expressed judicial philosophy in this and the DC v. Heller decision. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.
Click to expand...

You are wrong -it is an individual right or the founders would not have generated so many documents indicating as such

but lets suppose you are right

tell me where the federal government gets the power delegated to it to regulate small arms
 
Goshin said:
Don't think I mentioned voting.... but since you ask, I believe that if we let them out of prison, that all their rights as a citizen should be restored.

If we don't figure we can safely do so, don't let them out.

I would prefer to see crimes like carjacking, forcible rape, armed robbery, and attempted murder carry life-without-parole sentences. Basically anything that involves the threat of death to innocent citizens and indicates a individual who is utterly careless of other's rights and lives.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to make sure. You know many states don't allow them to vote, despite fulfilling their time.

As long as you're consistent, I'm cool with your opinion.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are wrong -it is an individual right or the founders would not have generated so many documents indicating as such
Click to expand...

They've also generated an equal number of documents indicating the opposite. The commentary of the founders is only one part of determining the original meaning of the Constitution. I will have more on this by tomorrow so please bear with me Turtle.

TurtleDude said:
but lets suppose you are right

tell me where the federal government gets the power delegated to it to regulate small arms
Click to expand...

Well, they would have the commerce clause authority to regulate guns traveling across state lines. Apart from that I would say that they haven't got any delegated power to regulate small arms, on an originalist reading, and guns that stay within the state are for the state to regulate as they see fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom