Assault on Our Rights

a reply to: JinMI

I feel like your just arguing from a point of anger. it seems to be blurring your intent.

A criminals right to bear arms, is usually a violation of some state regulation about criminals possessing firearms and is contradictory to the idea of keeping people safe and trying to prevent needless deaths.

a reply to: datguy

Why would I be angry?


Dont like how the Constitution was written?

Change it.

a reply to: JinMI

So.. don't place any focus on "inanimate objects" that give people the ability to kill many people with the use of their finger? And don't consider anything because "infringement".

Not very reasonable.

a reply to: JinMI

well, you clearly have issues with the idea of wanting to prevent criminals and people with mental issues from getting guns, so much so that you ignore the idea of criminals and mental health and are quick to make the accusation of "blaming inanimate objects" when the issue of criminal and mental health was addressed, just an obsservation.

Additionally i don't want to change the bill of rights, what ever comes after that including thousands of EOs, i will gladly debate changes to.
With that said, as i have debated earlier, states are well within their rights to apply regulations where the federal government has been restricted from doing so.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: JinMI

So.. don't place any focus on "inanimate objects" that give people the ability to kill many people with the use of their finger? And don't consider anything because "infringement".

Not very reasonable.

The argument of reasonability is in your court.

We have a 2nd amendment and 400 some million known firearms. If it was the object, you would know it.

a reply to: datguy

Thats allot of words used to not say anything.

What exactly are you proposing?

It wasn't a proposal, it was an answer to your previous question and reply to your previous remarks but sure, move the goal posts,
im game

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: datguy

Why would I be angry?


Dont like how the Constitution was written?

Change it.

a reply to: datguy

The goalpost is the 2nd amendment.

Same as its always been.


So...whats your proposal?

a reply to: JinMI

follow the constitution

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: JinMI

follow the constitution

Thats my position.

Yours:

With that said, as i have debated earlier, states are well within their rights to apply regulations where the federal government has been restricted from doing so.

Are you familiar with the supremacy clause?

May want to check it out

a reply to: JinMI

been there done that, read the thread.
states are well within their rights to pass gun legislation, the cry of "your infringing on my rights" falls out at the 10th

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: JinMI

been there done that, read the thread.
states are well within their rights to pass gun legislation, the cry of "your infringing on my rights" falls out at the 10th

Then tell me the point of the supreme court please.



Why are all the people who want to deny civil rights so damn ignorant?

a reply to: JinMI

the point of the supreme courts role, in this instance would be to decide the validity of any established laws that are under constitutional challenge.

i never said anything about wanting to deny civil rights
and your insults only prove that you are angry

a reply to: datguy

Yes, i am now angry.

Dealing with ignorance has that effect on me.

the point of the supreme courts role, in this instance would be to decide the validity of any established laws that are under constitutional challenge.

Like the 2nd amendment?

Ffs.

a reply to: JinMI

would be IF it was the 2a being challenged but it isnt, its a state law were discussing

what was that about ingorance?

a reply to: datguy

You mean all the cases where Newsomes laws are smacked down?

a reply to: JinMI

so are you denying that the state of California has established gun laws?

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: yeahright

i suppose that's debatable but if you support the constitution then you have to support the 10th Amendment? no?
we don't get to pick and choose out of convenience for the sake of argument

but we can debate i suppose

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.

And the 2nd says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Since the right to bear arms has specifically been reserved for the people, the States have no more legal authority to infringe on them than the Federal government.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

but you quoted me commenting on the 10th, which grants states rights when they are prohibited to the federal gov.

In addition, there are many states (like ALL of them) that have gun laws, which can be show to have been challenged but yet they still exist, do you understand the implications there?

That means that the 10th amendment, the supremacy clause and the supreme court, disagree with you

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

but you quoted me commenting on the 10th, which grants states rights when they are prohibited to the federal gov.

In addition, there are many states (like ALL of them) that have gun laws, which can be show to have been challenged but yet they still exist, do you understand the implications there?

That means that the 10th amendment, the supremacy clause and the supreme court, disagree with you

The 10th grants the States or the People authority, not rights, where that authority is not given to the Federal government.

Since the 2nd specifically assigns the Right to Bear Arms to the People, the 10th implies that the Federal and State governments do not have the authority to infringe on that Right, as it has been reserved for the People.

Federal and State governments have and are breaking the law by infringing on that Right. Like many criminals, they ignore the law and impose their will with guns. You'll notice that gun control laws governments write do not apply to government, only the people. And yet, neither Federal or State governments have a Constitutional protected right to bear arms.

So, the combination of the 2nd and 10th say that the People have the Right to Bear Arms and neither Federal nor State governments may infringe on that. It's just a simple interpretation of the English Language. If you can find a professor of the English language to read the 2nd and 10th and conclude that they give Federal or State governments the authority to infringe on the People's right to bear arms, I'd be willing to listen to their arguments.

I don't believe the Supremacy clause overrides the 2nd. Partly because the 2nd comes before it. I believe the Founding Fathers listed our rights in order of importance to a free society. First and foremost of those is the right of a man to say what he believes is true. Second only to that is the right of a man to defend himself from any and all threats.

But aside from my instinctive preference for chronological order, if the Supremacy clause can be used to override our rights, then we really have no rights at all, and we are not a free society. If Federal and State governments are willing to formally state that the American people really have no rights, only privileges, and we are essentially a society ruled by goons with guns, I will accept that. Somehow, I don't expect that level of honesty from government while so many people still have guns.

As for the Supreme Court, unfortunately, they are politicians, just like the President and Congress. They are human, and subject to the same corruption as the other two branches. They are part of the same governments that are trying to illegally usurp authority that they should not have. The same governments that constantly and consistently lie to the American people. I would issue the same challenge to them as I do the English professor. Read the 2nd and 10th, and show me where Federal or State governments have the legal authority to infringe on the right of the People to bear arms. Bonus points if they can show me where Federal or State governments have the right to bear arms, and should be exempt from the laws they write.