• 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!

ABC NIGHTLINE pushing the gun issue [W:194]

How many times have you been through this sort of exchange with people who disagree with your rather unique interpretation of the Constitution?

I could write the lines back and forth if I were so inclined to waste the entire day.... or possibly two.

It always ends up in an argument about the meaning of the language contained in Article I Section 8, Section 9 and the 10th Amendment.

Now really Federalist, come on and fess up here..... this is not your first rodeo and you know the sequence of he events by this time.

And we have not even touched upon the multiple orgasmic wonders of the elastic clause nor the meaning and significance of the Preamble. And if I never do again I will consider that a good thing.
 
How many times have you been through this sort of exchange with people who disagree with your rather unique interpretation of the Constitution?

I could write the lines back and forth if I were so inclined to waste the entire day.... or possibly two.

It always ends up in an argument about the meaning of the language contained in Article I Section 8, Section 9 and the 10th Amendment.

Now really Federalist, come on and fess up here..... this is not your first rodeo and you know the sequence of he events but this time.
Unique interpretation? Huh? What am I "interpreting" wrong?

I am simply reading the document, and I see no police power granted to the federal government. If you would like to show me where such power is granted to the federal government, by all means please show us all.

Otherwise, you would seem to be the one with the unique interpretation, by ascribing mysterious undocumented powers to the federal government
 
Unique interpretation? Huh? What am I "interpreting" wrong?

I am simply reading the document, and I see no police power granted to the federal government. If you would like to show me where such power is granted to the federal government, by all means please show us all.

Otherwise, you would seem to be the one with the unique interpretation, by ascribing mysterious undocumented powers to the federal government

My agreeing with the US SUpreme Court that Congress can passs laws that you object to as outside of their powers is a "unique interpretation"?

Most interesting.

Are you aware of the mother who came to see here son in a town parade since he played in the band? As they went by, it was obvious to all that sonny boy was out of sync with everyone else and was leading with the wrong foot. Proud Momma puffed out her ample bosom and declared loudly that "everybody is out of step but my Johnnie!"

I get it.

The Congress for the last eight decades has been out of step.
The Supreme Court for the last eight decades has been out of step.
The President for the last eight decades has been out of step.

And only those on the far right are marching in sync.

I get it. I have gotten it for a very long time now. You come across loud and clear.

I get it.
 
My agreeing with the US SUpreme Court that Congress can passs laws that you object to as outside of their powers is a "unique interpretation"?
So I take it by your response that you cannot provide any constitutional basis for such federal police powers as gun bans and registration.

You see, if you're going to try to convince people that a particular act is lawful, it generally requires citing the law in question.
 
So I take it by your response that you cannot provide any constitutional basis for such federal police powers as gun bans and registration.

You see, if you're going to try to convince people that a particular act is lawful, it generally requires citing the law in question.

I already did . Perhaps you missed the posts which gave you the US Constitution, Article I Section 8. And to help guide you in your reading of that you should first read the Preamble which tells you what goals were established for all the detail that follows.
 
I already did . Perhaps you missed the posts which gave you the US Constitution, Article I Section 8. And to help guide you in your reading of that you should first read the Preamble which tells you what goals were established for all the detail that follows.
I have read that section many times. Would you care to provide a quote of what you consider to be the enabling language? I see nothing in there that would allow the sort of police powers as we have been discussing.
 
I have read that section many times. Would you care to provide a quote of what you consider to be the enabling language? I see nothing in there that would allow the sort of police powers as we have been discussing.

You have read it many times?!?!?!?!? And still you do not recognize the relevant language!?!?!?!?!?!? :shock::roll:

That only makes me suspect rather strongly that even when given more you will still pretend to not understand.

But look at the language in Article I, Section 8, sections 1, 3, 16, and 18. And to help you understand what the goals of the Constitution are and how those things further those stated goals you should read the Preamble.

Now what odds can I get that you will return shortly with a cry that you read those things and you don't see anything there which authorizes action? ;)

Lets face it Federalist, you know all this stuff and have been through it before. This is just a diversion you are trying to escape the definition debacle you were caught in for the past two days.
 
You have read it many times?!?!?!?!? And still you do not recognize the relevant language!?!?!?!?!?!? :shock::roll:

That only makes me suspect rather strongly that even when given more you will still pretend to not understand.

But look at the language in Article I, Section 8, sections 1, 3, 16, and 18. And to help you understand what the goals of the Constitution are and how those things further those stated goals you should read the Preamble.

Now what odds can I get that you will return shortly with a cry that you read those things and you don't see anything there which authorizes action? ;)

How about a quote of what you consider to be the enabling language?
 
You have read it many times?!?!?!?!? And still you do not recognize the relevant language!?!?!?!?!?!? :shock::roll:

That only makes me suspect rather strongly that even when given more you will still pretend to not understand.

But look at the language in Article I, Section 8, sections 1, 3, 16, and 18. And to help you understand what the goals of the Constitution are and how those things further those stated goals you should read the Preamble.

Paragraph 1 grants congress the power to tax.
Paragraph 2 grants congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the indian tribes, and among the several states
Paragraph 16 grants congress the power to arm and organize the militia
Paragraph 18 grants congress the power to carry the foregoing powers into execution via legislation

Okay, so which on of these do you claim give congress the police powers we have been discussing?
 
How about a quote of what you consider to be the enabling language?

Paragraph 1 - is but one sentence . I prefer NOT to cherry pick a word or two.
Paragraph 3 - is also but one sentence
paragraph 16 - specifically authorizes Congress to pass laws for the governing of the militia.... and far too many people here on the far right love to point out to me that everybody is in the militia .
paragraph 18 - necessary and proper clause

All those together are ample evidence of the ability of Congress to pass national legislation over weapons.

And if you read the Preamble which tells you why they wrote the Constitution in its entirety and those reasons apply to all those included.
 
Paragraph 1 - is but one sentence . I prefer NOT to cherry pick a word or two.
Yeah. That's a good one.
Paragraph 3 - is also but one sentence
paragraph 16 - specifically authorizes Congress to pass laws for the governing of the militia.... and far too many people here on the far right love to point out to me that everybody is in the militia .
paragraph 18 - necessary and proper clause

All those together are ample evidence of the ability of Congress to pass national legislation over weapons.

And if you read the Preamble which tells you why they wrote the Constitution in its entirety and those reasons apply to all those included.
Paragraph 1 gives congress the power to tax. How could this possibly be construed to grant the police power to require firearms registration?

Paragraph 3 gives congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. How could this possibly be construed to grant the police power to require firearms registration?

Paragraph 16 gives congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. How could this possibly be construed to grant the police power to require firearms registration?

Paragraph 18, as you know, grants no power other than the power to enact legislation to carry into execution the foregoing powers. This is contractual boilerplate.

So which of these powers gives congress the power to enact a weapons ban, or require gun registration, or to require waiting periods?
 
Yeah. That's a good one.

I rather do like it myself.

Paragraph 1 gives congress the power to tax. How could this possibly be construed to grant the police power to require firearms registration?

Sounds like you have an incomplete copy.

Paragraph 3 gives congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. How could this possibly be construed to grant the police power to require firearms registration?

Are you under the impression that the sale of firearms involves no commerce among the states?

Paragraph 16 gives congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. How could this possibly be construed to grant the police power to require firearms registration?

Many conservative pro-gun people here constantly use the argument that we are all in the militia and that is one reason why we need to have our personal firearms. If that is true, this part of the Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws governing the militia - and that would be all of us with our firearms.

Paragraph 18, as you know, grants no power other than the power to enact legislation to carry into execution the foregoing powers. This is contractual boilerplate.

Again, you must have an incomplete copy.
 
Sounds like you have an incomplete copy.
Paragraph 1 grants congress the power to tax. Are you claiming that paragraph 1 gives congress the power to exercise the police powers we've been discussing?

Are you under the impression that the sale of firearms involves no commerce among the states?
Are you under the impression that something involving commerce among the states IS commerce among the states? Firearms sales are firearms sales, and commerce among the states is commerce among the state.

Are you claiming that paragraph 3 gives congress the power to exercise the police powers we've been discussing?

Many conservative pro-gun people here constantly use the argument that we are all in the militia and that is one reason why we need to have our personal firearms. If that is true, this part of the Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws governing the militia - and that would be all of us with our firearms.

Congress has the power to provide for the ARMING of the militia, not the DISARMING of the militia.

Again, you must have an incomplete copy.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

As I said, this last paragraph is boilerplate. It grants congress the power to make the laws necessary to carry its other real powers into execution.

I would expect that your argument would not be such a shotgun approach. I would expect that it would take the form of "Congress has the power to X. Gun registration is a form of X. Therefore, Congress has the power to enact gun registration.

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone of anything by just throwing various paragraph numbers at the wall and hoping one of them sticks.
 
Your copy of the Constitution is radically different than mine.

It apparently is very very different than the one used by Congress, the President and the US Supreme Court for the last eight decades also.
 
No, it's the same. I just read mine.

I wonder what the President, Congress and the US Supreme Court have been reading for the past eight decades then?
 
I wonder what the President, Congress and the US Supreme Court have been reading for the past eight decades then?

That's a very good question. I wonder the same thing myself.
 
That's a very good question. I wonder the same thing myself.

we all know that constitution was crapped upon by the FDR court as the commerce clause became a blank check for congress and the tenth amendment was flushed down the toilet
 
we all know that constitution was crapped upon by the FDR court as the commerce clause became a blank check for congress and the tenth amendment was flushed down the toilet

When the constitution is against them, they cite legal precedence. When both are against them, they attack the plaintiff.
 
we all know that constitution was crapped upon by the FDR court as the commerce clause became a blank check for congress and the tenth amendment was flushed down the toilet

Every federal law amounts to the people of, say, California telling the people of, say, Vermont how to live their lives. Federal laws should deal with foreign relations and issues arising between the states. Otherwise, the people of California have no business telling the people of any other state how to live their lives. The federal government needs to get back to federal concerns and get its nose out of the people's lives. No wonder it's in debt for trillions of dollars. Being a busybody is expensive.
 
Back
Top Bottom