NationStates Jolt Archive

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government is not given the authority to regulate weapons. By doing so, this defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment. If the Federal government wants to regulate weapons then it should seek an amendment to the Constitution giving it this authority.

Private American citizens should at the very least be able to purchase any weapon that any law enforcement agency or military unit uses without any sort of regulations or registration. This includes fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles. While it probably isn't good for private citizens to own fighter jets and M1 tanks (although when the Constitution was ratified private citizens could own any weapon in existence including fully armed battleships) they should at least have the weapons to defeat them. After all, the Second Amendment was put into place so that the government could not oppress the people. What good would the amendment be if American citizens did not have the tools to fight an oppressive government?

This is just one example out of many of how the federal government is overstepping its constitutional bounds.

hear hear, and repeal income tax while we're at it, income tax was passed to fund our army for the Civil War after the democrats seceded over slavery. It should have been abolished ages ago.

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government is not given the authority to regulate weapons. By doing so, this defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment. If the Federal government wants to regulate weapons then it should seek an amendment to the Constitution giving it this authority.


What will you do when the public supports a constitutional amendment?

The Constitution was made to be open to interpretation and to be changeable, so arguing for gun ownership with the 2nd Amendment is a weak tactic.

hear hear, and repeal income tax while we're at it, income tax was passed to fund our army for the Civil War after the democrats seceded over slavery. It should have been abolished ages ago.

I thought it was passed by Theodore Roosevelt? :s

I thought it was passed by Theodore Roosevelt? :s
I believe that the Civil War income tax was repealed and was instituted again under Roosevelt.

I would indeed like gun control to lessen, if not totally go by the wayside....

I believe that the Civil War income tax was repealed and was instituted again under Roosevelt.

That clears things up!

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government is not given the authority to regulate weapons. By doing so, this defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment. If the Federal government wants to regulate weapons then it should seek an amendment to the Constitution giving it this authority.

Private American citizens should at the very least be able to purchase any weapon that any law enforcement agency or military unit uses without any sort of regulations or registration. This includes fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles. While it probably isn't good for private citizens to own fighter jets and M1 tanks (although when the Constitution was ratified private citizens could own any weapon in existence including fully armed battleships) they should at least have the weapons to defeat them. After all, the Second Amendment was put into place so that the government could not oppress the people. What good would the amendment be if American citizens did not have the tools to fight an oppressive government?

This is just one example out of many of how the federal government is overstepping its constitutional bounds.

Well, I don't know enough to argue what you're syaing, but are you advocating private citizens owning rocket launchers?

What will you do when the public supports a constitutional amendment?

The Constitution was made to be open to interpretation and to be changeable
No it is not! If that were the case then the Constitution means nothing. The whole argument that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living, breathing document is completely undermining to our republic.

The Constitution is a body of law that can only be amended if the government goes to great lengths to change it, and that is the only way it can be changed. The very reason the Constitution is so difficult to amend is to prevent those in power from treating it as something that changes with the wind. The Constitution and its meaning was set in stone the day it was written, and the only way to change it is with an amendment.

Well, I don't know enough to argue what you're syaing, but are you advocating private citizens owning rocket launchers?
Yes!

I also believe that one shouldn't have to have a license for concealed carry. After all, Vermont seems to survive just fine.

Yes!

I also believe that one shouldn't have to have a license for concealed carry. After all, Vermont seems to survive just fine.

I think you should have the right to carry concealed rocket launchers on your person, too. :D

I think you should have the right to carry concealed rocket launchers on your person, too. :D

The good ones aren't that concealable.

Besides, I live in Virginia. I don't mind getting the permit. They will issue them as long as you are not a felon or wife beater.

It used to be that they almost never issued them in the more liberal counties, but the law now forces them to issue them unless they can prove you're a felon.

The good ones aren't that concealable.



I know. I was being dumb, in what I thought was a mildly amusing manner. Maybe humour isn't my forte.

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government is not given the authority to regulate weapons. By doing so, this defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment. If the Federal government wants to regulate weapons then it should seek an amendment to the Constitution giving it this authority.


On the other hand it has the constitutional authority to keep an army, and certain weapons only have military applications. Banning assault rifles, M1 tanks and Harrier Jets could be taken as falling under the government's power to regulate the military.

Private American citizens should at the very least be able to purchase any weapon that any law enforcement agency or military unit uses without any sort of regulations or registration. This includes fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles. While it probably isn't good for private citizens to own fighter jets and M1 tanks (although when the Constitution was ratified private citizens could own any weapon in existence including fully armed battleships) they should at least have the weapons to defeat them. After all, the Second Amendment was put into place so that the government could not oppress the people. What good would the amendment be if American citizens did not have the tools to fight an oppressive government?

This is just one example out of many of how the federal government is overstepping its constitutional bounds.


Personally I think that the public ought to push for an amendment that clarifies where the Federal governments regulatory power ends. The Supreme Court was already abusing its power in 1824 when they said that growing wheat on your own land and eating it yourself rather than selling it is still subject to Federal regulation because if you eat your own wheat then you're not buying it from a farmer in another state. They claimed that anything that had and effect on something that the government has the power to regulate was subject to Federal law.

I'd like to see an amendment that says something to the effect of "no it doesn't you jackasses, read the 10th fucking amendment."

No it is not! If that were the case then the Constitution means nothing. The whole argument that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living, breathing document is completely undermining to our republic.

The Constitution is a body of law that can only be amended if the government goes to great lengths to change it, and that is the only way it can be changed. The very reason the Constitution is so difficult to amend is to prevent those in power from treating it as something that changes with the wind. The Constitution and its meaning was set in stone the day it was written, and the only way to change it is with an amendment.

But it is open to interpretation and it is amendable. That cannot be denied.

Personally I think that the public ought to push for an amendment that clarifies where the Federal governments regulatory power ends. The Supreme Court was already abusing its power in 1824 when they said that growing wheat on your own land and eating it yourself rather than selling it is still subject to Federal regulation because if you eat your own wheat then you're not buying it from a farmer in another state. They claimed that anything that had and effect on something that the government has the power to regulate was subject to Federal law.


The Supreme Court has been abusing its power since 1824? :headbang:
A mere 35 years after the Constitution was enacted? :headbang:
181 years ago? :headbang:

Good thing you've come along to set things right!!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

No it is not! If that were the case then the Constitution means nothing. The whole argument that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living, breathing document is completely undermining to our republic.

The Constitution is a body of law that can only be amended if the government goes to great lengths to change it, and that is the only way it can be changed. The very reason the Constitution is so difficult to amend is to prevent those in power from treating it as something that changes with the wind. The Constitution and its meaning was set in stone the day it was written, and the only way to change it is with an amendment.

Funny, I thought it was written on parchment. Also, the framers had all records of their meeting sealed until well after their lifetime. Clearly they didn't want people trying to figure out what they wanted, but rather to use it as the times demanded. All law should be viewed as representing a principle. California recently passed a law banning necrophelia, technically this would condemn anyone whose partner died in the act. It violates the principle of the law, and so it should not apply.

The same deal with the constitution. The Federal government was given the power to regulate trade so that it could discourage rampant economic protectionism between states. It was given the power to regulate the army so that border states could not be forced to shoulder the entire cost of any war. Using those powers to ban the sale of weapons, the sale of drugs, or the sale of pretty much anything violates those principles. Keeping individual citizens safe from crime is not the Federal government's job. It's a job for the states.

The Supreme Court has been abusing its power since 1824? :headbang:
A mere 35 years after the Constitution was enacted? :headbang:
181 years ago? :headbang:

Good thing you've come along to set things right!!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Hell, the president was violating the Constitution right after George Washington left office. There was outcry after the alien and sedition acts that the president was passing unconstitutional laws and using them in a tyrannical fashion to violate freedom of speech.

It never takes long for people to start abusing authority and law.

Tell me, does imposing Federal regulation on a non-commercial subsistence farm sound like a valid use of the ability to regulate (back when regulate ment "to make regular," not "to make regulations about") interstate trade to you?

You think you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

Wow...what a sad, little paranoid world you live in...

You think you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

Wow...what a sad, little paranoid world you live in...

It's not paranoia when it's real.

Governments will oppress people unless there is a force to stop them. Without weapons the only thing holding the government back from oppressing citizens is a few pieces of paper. Guns (and rocket launchers) equalize citizens and governments, and allow citizens the chance to maintain their freedom.

It's not paranoia when it's real.

Governments will oppress people unless there is a force to stop them. Without weapons the only thing holding the government back from oppressing citizens is a few pieces of paper. Guns (and rocket launchers) equalize citizens and governments, and allow citizens the chance to maintain their freedom.

Governments also oppress people with guns to defend themselves (see Chechnia).
Also, last time I checked, in a democracy the best way to defend yourself is to surround yourself with lawyers, who will rain lawsuits upon your helpless oppressors.

Governments also oppress people with guns to defend themselves (see Chechnia).
Also, last time I checked, in a democracy the best way to defend yourself is to surround yourself with lawyers, who will rain lawsuits upon your helpless oppressors.

True but it's a lot harder. Chechnya is fighting back ain't it.

Democracy lasts only because of guns (and capitalism). Remove guns and democracy will slowly erode.

Oh for the love of God...I'm sick of hearing people saying that the government is going to come in and take over our lives. The military would not moraly involve itself in that, not in the US.

I'm all for allowing private citizens to own and operate firearms. But there needs to be a limit.

Like I said, you don't need a FRIGGIN' rocket launcher to defend yourselves! And there is no vast liberal government conspiracy to come in, take your guns and your women-folk, and convert you to Islam, so enough!

Hell, the president was violating the Constitution right after George Washington left office. There was outcry after the alien and sedition acts that the president was passing unconstitutional laws and using them in a tyrannical fashion to violate freedom of speech.

It never takes long for people to start abusing authority and law.

Tell me, does imposing Federal regulation on a non-commercial subsistence farm sound like a valid use of the ability to regulate (back when regulate ment "to make regular," not "to make regulations about") interstate trade to you?

When will people learn to do their homework before they decide our entire Constitutional system is wrong? :headbang:

The President does not pass laws. :headbang:

Congress enacted the four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802. The other 3 laws expired in 1800 and 1801.

You also have your legal history completely screwed up.

The important interstate commerce case decided in 1824 was Gibbons v. Ogden (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0022_0001_ZS.html) , a unanimous decision with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall.

The case you are getting all worked up about is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/111.html), another unanimous decision. Try reading it.

By the way, if the Supreme Court is so evil, who is going to protect your precious "right to bear arms"?

Oh for the love of God...I'm sick of hearing people saying that the government is going to come in and take over our lives. The military would not moraly involve itself in that, not in the US.

I'm all for allowing private citizens to own and operate firearms. But there needs to be a limit.

Like I said, you don't need a FRIGGIN' rocket launcher to defend yourselves! And there is no vast liberal government conspiracy to come in, take your guns and your women-folk, and convert you to Islam, so enough!

Who said it was a liberal conspiracy, both sides want take away our freedoms. They just want different ones.

Oh for the love of God...I'm sick of hearing people saying that the government is going to come in and take over our lives. The military would not moraly involve itself in that, not in the US.

I'm all for allowing private citizens to own and operate firearms. But there needs to be a limit.

Like I said, you don't need a FRIGGIN' rocket launcher to defend yourselves! And there is no vast liberal government conspiracy to come in, take your guns and your women-folk, and convert you to Islam, so enough!

I agree there is no liberal conspiracy to take our guns, women and convert us to Islam. It is a process, not a planned course. Those trying to take guns away, aren't usually thinking about it as trying to remove our freedoms, they're just shortsighted.

A government doesn't turn from a democracy to dictatorship overnight, it is a process. One small freedom is taken at a time, usually for reasons having to do with the good of the populace, then after a long time people look back and realize how much freeodom they have lost. Guns are a last ditch resource to protect citizen's freedoms, after constitutions, courts, and legislatures have failed.

If we take away protections citizens have, one day a man will come into a situation where he has an oppurtunity to take full control, and most men will take that oppurtunity if it presents itself. Guns lessen the chance of that oppurtunity from happening.

Besides how else would ou take out a tank, even an assault rifle can't take out a tank. Maybe a Molotov cocktail but that is a very risky proposition.

Personally, I believe that the language of the Constitution isn't clear enough to even definitively interpret it as "All Americans have a right to have guns 'n other weapons". Check it out on FindLaw. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government is not given the authority to regulate weapons. By doing so, this defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment. If the Federal government wants to regulate weapons then it should seek an amendment to the Constitution giving it this authority.

Private American citizens should at the very least be able to purchase any weapon that any law enforcement agency or military unit uses without any sort of regulations or registration. This includes fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles. While it probably isn't good for private citizens to own fighter jets and M1 tanks (although when the Constitution was ratified private citizens could own any weapon in existence including fully armed battleships) they should at least have the weapons to defeat them. After all, the Second Amendment was put into place so that the government could not oppress the people. What good would the amendment be if American citizens did not have the tools to fight an oppressive government?

This is just one example out of many of how the federal government is overstepping its constitutional bounds.


When the government owns all the best weapons has control over public utilities water electric etc etc there can be no successful attempt at an overthrow.

At that point you are property of your government. (hint hint)

On the other hand it has the constitutional authority to keep an army, and certain weapons only have military applications. Banning assault rifles, M1 tanks and Harrier Jets could be taken as falling under the government's power to regulate the military.
The constitution says that the federal government can raise an army. It doesn't say it can regulate guns. The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to own the same weapons as the military.

Personally I think that the public ought to push for an amendment that clarifies where the Federal governments regulatory power ends. The Supreme Court was already abusing its power in 1824 when they said that growing wheat on your own land and eating it yourself rather than selling it is still subject to Federal regulation because if you eat your own wheat then you're not buying it from a farmer in another state. They claimed that anything that had and effect on something that the government has the power to regulate was subject to Federal law.

I'd like to see an amendment that says something to the effect of "no it doesn't you jackasses, read the 10th fucking amendment."
Agreed.

But it is open to interpretation and it is amendable. That cannot be denied.
Yes, it can be amended. That is the only way for the Constitution can change.

You think you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?

Wow...what a sad, little paranoid world you live in...
There's nothing paranoid about it. The biggest perpetraters of mass murder have been governments.

What's to stop a government from sliding into fascism? A scrap of paper?

Governments also oppress people with guns to defend themselves (see Chechnia).
Yeah, ask Russia how that's going.

Like I said, you don't need a FRIGGIN' rocket launcher to defend yourselves!
It doesn't matter. The second amendment is there to keep the federal government in check and rocket launchers do the trick.

Yeah, ask Russia how that's going.

No, they'll lie and say now that that horrible leader is gone everything will be good.

When will people learn to do their homework before they decide our entire Constitutional system is wrong? :headbang:

The President does not pass laws. :headbang:

Congress enacted the four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802. The other 3 laws expired in 1800 and 1801.

You also have your legal history completely screwed up.

The important interstate commerce case decided in 1824 was Gibbons v. Ogden (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0022_0001_ZS.html) , a unanimous decision with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall.

The case you are getting all worked up about is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/111.html), another unanimous decision. Try reading it.

By the way, if the Supreme Court is so evil, who is going to protect your precious "right to bear arms"?

The president doesn't write laws, true, but he does pass them.

I don't care if it was unanimous. I think it was wrong. It was a political decision by a government that wanted to extent its powers beyond what they were meant for. But what is your point? Do you actually think that the power to regulate interstate commerce in the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted to allow Congress to regulate goods not being traded?

If so, what do you think about the, I think it was Scalia's, claim that just because something is made in one state and sold in another that does NOT mean that it is interstate commerce? If the Federal Government has the power to ban whatever commerce it damn well pleases then why did they have to write an amendment to allow them to ban alchohol.

I never said I thought that the Supreme Court was especially evil, only that as the arbiter of our rights it has made some pretty fucked up decisions. It was Congress that wrote the laws that I disagreed with and more often than not the president signs off on them because he's the one who has to implement them. I get mad at pretty much all of them. I'm also not too big on the gun rights thing. I don't own a gun and don't really have any plans to get one.

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional. The Federal government is not given the authority to regulate weapons. By doing so, this defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment. If the Federal government wants to regulate weapons then it should seek an amendment to the Constitution giving it this authority.

Private American citizens should at the very least be able to purchase any weapon that any law enforcement agency or military unit uses without any sort of regulations or registration. This includes fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles. While it probably isn't good for private citizens to own fighter jets and M1 tanks (although when the Constitution was ratified private citizens could own any weapon in existence including fully armed battleships) they should at least have the weapons to defeat them. After all, the Second Amendment was put into place so that the government could not oppress the people. What good would the amendment be if American citizens did not have the tools to fight an oppressive government?

This is just one example out of many of how the federal government is overstepping its constitutional bounds.

If this is a joke, funny!
If not, your a tool.

OK, I'm going to try again. I'll try be nice this time.

The president doesn't write laws, true, but he does pass them.
The President does not pass laws. Congress legislates (i.e., it passes laws). The President may sign or veto (or not sign which can be complicated).

I'm Just A Bill (http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html)
I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

I don't care if it was unanimous. I think it was wrong. It was a political decision by a government that wanted to extent its powers beyond what they were meant for. But what is your point? Do you actually think that the power to regulate interstate commerce in the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted to allow Congress to regulate goods not being traded?

You didn't read it, did you? As is clearly explained therein, the answer to your question is a simple "yes."

The law in question was passed by Congress and was being enforced by the Executive Branch. A unanimous Supreme Court held it was constitutional. Over 60 years later, that decision has been upheld dozens of times.

Perhaps more important, you don't understand the Commerce Clause. Constitutional law is a bit more complicated than bumper stickers.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

If so, what do you think about the, I think it was Scalia's, claim that just because something is made in one state and sold in another that does NOT mean that it is interstate commerce? If the Federal Government has the power to ban whatever commerce it damn well pleases then why did they have to write an amendment to allow them to ban alchohol.

Are these questions serious?

If so, you'll have to be a bit more specific about the first, as I doubt even Scalia said something so silly.

I won't even start on the second question until you explain how the history of prohibition demonstrates a constitutional limitation on the Legislative Branch.

I never said I thought that the Supreme Court was especially evil, only that as the arbiter of our rights it has made some pretty fucked up decisions. It was Congress that wrote the laws that I disagreed with and more often than not the president signs off on them because he's the one who has to implement them. I get mad at pretty much all of them. I'm also not too big on the gun rights thing. I don't own a gun and don't really have any plans to get one.

You "get mad at pretty much all" of the laws passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? No wonder you are unhappy with our Constitutional government. If you don't grow out of it, perhaps you can find a nice island somewhere.

Darn, I didn't have much luck being nice. "Bad, kitty, bad."

I love guns, but sometimes the gun industry does things that are really stupid, selling rocket launchers would fall under the category of really stupid. If you want to take out a tank dont use a rocket launcher, those dont work aginst m1a2 abrams anyway. I do agree the feds should not be able to regulate FireArms but Rockets tanks and other such heavy weapons are not fire arms they are implements of war, not used by milita anyway. The Point for that part of the 2nd amendment was to prevent a govt. like the british from dominating without its citizens consent, so assault rifles are a good thing, but its ok to regulate them, as they do today. you can buy an mp5 full auto for 1500 plus the 300 for the permit, and another 1k for the gun safe. I just dont see how this is a bad thing. The Permit is there to prevent crazy, seperatists from killing hundreds of people and wasteing the cops that get in the way. But when California Senetors try to say that a bolt action 3 round magazine fed rifle is an assault rifle, thats crossing the line on a different non-constitutional way, thats called a crazy ass bitch that needs to not be so hippocritical, as to carry a .38 on her everywhere she goes but to try to ban the sales of the very gun she has. Sorry for the lack of text formating, im super lazy and have to go to class in a few minutes

******END RANT********

Tanks and Planes are used by the militia, what do you think the National Guard is. And while guns themselves may prevent the government from becoming tyranical, the real issue is that if they can take away the Second Ammendment, whats to stop them from taking away every other ammendment.

Tanks and Planes are used by the militia, what do you think the National Guard is. And while guns themselves may prevent the government from becoming tyranical, the real issue is that if they can take away the Second Ammendment, whats to stop them from taking away every other ammendment.

OK, I'm not going to get into this point-by-point, but the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to own or use firearms.

Here is the text:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

The first portion of the Amendment is not superfulous. It modifies the latter part. BTW, the extra comma (after arms) is just odd and everyone seems to ignore it. I have no idea why it is there.

In the history of our republic, no legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

Here are some sources explaining the meaning of the Second Amendment:
ABA statement on the Second Amendment (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html)
Our Second Amendment (http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall99humanrights/blek.html)
Second Amendment cases (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/courts.html)
Second Amendment Articles (http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/articles/index.php)

Before you all go nuts, I'm just setting out the other view -- which is (and has been for over 100 years) the prevaling view of the courts. I know you can find tons of stuff on the internet -- including law review articles and the DOJ memo that disagree. That's fine. I won't even argue.

Before you all go nuts, I'm just setting out the other view -- which is (and has been for over 100 years) the prevaling view of the courts. I know you can find tons of stuff on the internet -- including law review articles and the DOJ memo that disagree. That's fine. I won't even argue.

That's because you're WRONG you gun grabbing Nazi!!!! :)

That's because you're WRONG you gun grabbing Nazi!!!! :)


Aw, shucks. :fluffle: :fluffle:

Are these questions serious?

If so, you'll have to be a bit more specific about the first, as I doubt even Scalia said something so silly.

Well the Supreme Court has decided such itself. I don't really feel like looking for exact quotations, but the decision is here. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=128&invol=1)

I won't even start on the second question until you explain how the history of prohibition demonstrates a constitutional limitation on the Legislative Branch.

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The point I was making was why would Congress feel the need to give itself this power if it already had it?

You "get mad at pretty much all" of the laws passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? No wonder you are unhappy with our Constitutional government. If you don't grow out of it, perhaps you can find a nice island somewhere.

Not every law, every branch when they all agree to suppress our rights because they want to retain greater power for themselves. They are supposed to work at cross purposes to safeguard against bad laws being made and when they don't I get mad.

The Constitution was made to be open to interpretation
No, it wasn't.

and to be changeable,

By a 2/3 vote of both the House and the Senate, and the vote of 3/4 of the state legislatures, not a black-robed social engineer.

so arguing for gun ownership with the 2nd Amendment is a weak tactic.
The right to keep and bear arms is one that exists for all people, by God's providence, on account solely of their being human. The Second Amendment guarantees it, it does not grant it, and its abscence would change nothing.

Well, I don't know enough to argue what you're syaing, but are you advocating private citizens owning rocket launchers?
No, he's arguing the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of private citizens to own such weaponry, should they so choose.

Well the Supreme Court has decided such itself. I don't really feel like looking for exact quotations, but the decision is here. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=128&invol=1)

Um, that case is from 1888. Definitely not Scalia.

Moreover, it does not say anything close to your assertion that "just because something is made in one state and sold in another that does NOT mean that it is interstate commerce." To the contrary, it discusses whether interstate commerce includes materials made and sold entirely within one state.

Finally, the holding of the case -- which distinguishes between manufacturing and commerce -- has been overturned.

Nice try. No cigar.


1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The point I was making was why would Congress feel the need to give itself this power if it already had it?

This is an old canard with multiple flaws.

First, you are drawing an improper affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Why did Congress feel the need to pass the Eighteenth Amendment? Was it because it couldn't prohibit alcohol without it? You are assuming the answers without evidence.

Second, you falsely ignore the limitations of interstate commerce. I have not said (and the Supreme Court has never held) that Congress could prohibit purely intrastate activities.

Third, historically your argument falls apart. The federal government had been increasingly moving toward prohibition prior to passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and had not been held afoul of the Commerce Clause -- to the contrary, state attempts to prohibit alcohol had been invalidated under the dormant Commerce Clause (i.e., they were said to be inconsistent with Congress's power over interstate commerce).


Not every law, every branch when they all agree to suppress our rights because they want to retain greater power for themselves. They are supposed to work at cross purposes to safeguard against bad laws being made and when they don't I get mad.

OK. You are the one that said "pretty much all," but no matter. I agree the Supreme Court is not always correct. I definitely agree that all three branches of government can be wrong.

My problem is you seem to feel they have all three been consistently wrong since nearly the founding of our Republic. Setting aside the merits of such a claim, it would appear to follow that our Constitution itself is flawed. I disagree -- and I think almost any American who thinks about it would also disagree.

The Constitution was made to be open to interpretation

No, it wasn't..

Great, another one who thinks the Supreme Court has been wrong since the Founding. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Do you really think over 200 years of Supreme Court Justices, including some of the Founders, have just been pulling cases out of thin air? :headbang: :headbang:

The right to keep and bear arms is one that exists for all people, by God's providence, on account solely of their being human. The Second Amendment guarantees it, it does not grant it, and its abscence would change nothing.
Because we all know the bible says "And the Lord said unto them 'Buyeth thine MP5's and thine rocket launchers. I give thee my divine right to owneth things to bloweth up other things.' And there was much rejoicing"[/SARCASM]

That would be pretty cool to have in the bible. But as was pointed out earlier with the actual text of the Second Ammendment, it clearly states that the right of the people to bear arms may not be infringed upon. States that have done so have been undermining the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. I do think that there should be some regulation in the sale of firearms (ie. background checks, registration) to make sure that these weapons aren't used for a killing spree, but they shouldn't be going too far.