Gun Legislation

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps you've just been lead to believe you have rights that you don't? Doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution you have the right to own a semi auto high velocity assault weapon. That's for the people and laws to decide. They drew the line with full auto quite some time ago and I don't see you beotching about that.

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the government can ban my "semi auto high velocity assault weapon".

That's the singular truth you need to accept.

Those who desire to ban them should make the plea that government should be allowed to ban them (with a constitutional amendment). Problem is, you are pushing against the clear and unambiguous criteria established by SCOTUS that determines if a type of arm is outside the reach of government.

Of all the types of guns currently available to the general public, those deemed to be "assault weapons" with their standard issue magazines, (typically holding 20-30 cartridges), fit that protection criteria better than any other type of firearm.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the government can ban my "semi auto high velocity assault weapon".



.

where does it say they cant?


That's the singular truth you need to accept.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

where does it say they cant?


That's the singular truth you need to accept.

And the spring from which your incorrect ideas flow, has been discovered. You are so profoundly backwards in your thinking I realize now it is probably useless to even try to correct you. How does your position mesh with the 10th Amendment?

I'll state my argument anyway, just for those who might be interested.

The specific enumeration of powers in the Constitution limits the powers of the government . . . IOW, the feds can only do what the Constitution says it can do.


If it ain't there it can not be done!


That correct "singular truth" was the main reason the Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. They believed it was dangerous to add declarations that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to do those things . . . that it was absurd to provide against the abuse of an authority which was ever granted to government!*

They also argued that the attempt to list rights was not only impossible, it was also dangerous. Our rights are innumerable, they are everything not conferred to government through the Constitution and someone, someday might assume and argue that that was the entire list of rights and something not listed was actually under the domain of government.

Of course the Federalists "lost" the argument and a bill of rights was added but Madison, being a Federalist, composed and proposed two provisions that codified Federalist argument against the bill of rights into the Constitution. They became the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you recognize how profoundly wrong your thinking is?






* Federalist 84, arguing against adding a bill of rights:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

And the spring from which your incorrect ideas flow, has been discovered. You are so profoundly backwards in your thinking I realize now it is probably useless to even try to correct you. How does your position mesh with the 10th Amendment?

I'll state my argument anyway, just for those who might be interested.

The specific enumeration of powers in the Constitution limits the powers of the government . . . IOW, the feds can only do what the Constitution says it can do.


If it ain't there it can not be done!


That correct "singular truth" was the main reason the Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. They believed it was dangerous to add declarations that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to do those things . . . that it was absurd to provide against the abuse of an authority which was ever granted to government!*

They also argued that the attempt to list rights was not only impossible, it was also dangerous. Our rights are innumerable, they are everything not conferred to government through the Constitution and someone, someday might assume and argue that that was the entire list of rights and something not listed was actually under the domain of government.

Of course the Federalists "lost" the argument and a bill of rights was added but Madison, being a Federalist, composed and proposed two provisions that codified Federalist argument against the bill of rights into the Constitution. They became the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you recognize how profoundly wrong your thinking is?






* Federalist 84, arguing against adding a bill of rights:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

.

Join the your wrong I am right club.. we get that alot from 2a guys.. its a typical response along with long theorize responses ..

Just the kind of people you can never have a conversation with..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Join the your wrong I am right club..

Just the kind of people you can never have a conversation with..

size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

there's a lot to love here

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Join the your wrong I am right club.. we get that alot from 2a guys.

And yet you slog on, dismissing the corrective information, content that the positions and beliefs you "feel" are correct (thus are content to refuse to defend) are absolutely factually correct. Problem is, they aren't. . .

Originally Posted by wdmso

its a typical response along with long theorize responses ..

Originally Posted by wdmso

Just the kind of people you can never have a conversation with.

Well, when you can't even acknowledge that the base "conversation" is governed by a set of rules, it's hard to have any structure or arrive at any consensus. You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas, the singular directing force for you is opinion, based in emotion, divorced from principle. You react to challenges to defend your policy positions as a personal attack on your feelings which is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent, reasoned conversation.

.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

And yet you slog on, dismissing the corrective information, content that the positions and beliefs you "feel" are correct (thus are content to refuse to defend) are absolutely factually correct. Problem is, they aren't. . .







Well, when you can't even acknowledge that the base "conversation" is governed by a set of rules, it's hard to have any structure or arrive at any consensus. You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas, the singular directing force for you is opinion, based in emotion, divorced from principle. You react to challenges to defend your policy positions as a personal attack on your feelings which is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent, reasoned conversation.

.

You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas

No .. I dont hide behind it like yourself...making interpretations that only a grandeious few see.. all in a defense in a selfish claim that owning any weapon is a Right.

Ive said it 100 times have no issues with owing a gun .. I take issue with the i can have any gun mantra or any regulations lead to confiscation .. help find the common ground or the common ground will found for you...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

grandeious

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you know that's not a word... right?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

No .. I dont hide behind it like yourself...making interpretations that only a grandeious few see.. all in a defense in a selfish claim that owning any weapon is a Right.

By all means point out any incorrect interpretation I've presented.

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ive said it 100 times have no issues with owing a gun .. I take issue with the i can have any gun mantra or any regulations lead to confiscation .. help find the common ground or the common ground will found for you...

You have no issues with me owning a gun just as long as it is one you approve of, and only one , maybe two if they are small and not too much ammo, and if I don't like those decrees I will find out that you really mean business, I'll be lucky if my house isn't burned down with me and my family in it when your proxy's come and take what you think I shouldn't have . . .