no kids? LOL, how many young men fought the British and the French and the Indians etc? I bet thousands
About the right to own guns back then see earlier post Continental Congress, March 14, 1776 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...and-the-9th-amendment.612580/#post-1074366010 As for the source for the 13%, someone pointed out the source may be unreliable. I found it my chance when I googled for fun ownership numbers during those time, so I do not vouch for it. Many young men for sure, but no children. I already explained the other poster what I meant by kids, so I see no point in repeating it to you
well the gun banning groups usually count as children-for the purposes of their stats-those 21 and under soI was seeing if there was any consistency. One thing is not in dispute-the federal government was never properly delegated any gun control powers over private citizens acting in their own private capacity. when one understands it=then it is obvious what the point of the second was
Correct. Regardless of anything in the bill of rights, the federal government simply has zero legislative powers over the ownership and use of weapons.
That would make the founders "gun banners", but IMO they did what they had to do given the circumstances. They would have taken your guns too if you had refused to comply. Zero power, as in anything and everything must be allowed? The founders, Anthony Scalia, NRA, and practically everyone else on two legs (or no legs) disagree.
Zero power, as in there is no enumerated legislative power listed in 1:8 that would allow the government to restrict the use and ownership of arms. Check it out. Read the document for yourself, and quote any text you think may be so empowering.
I have read it and this has been discussed a thousand times over. The founders were not idiots who meant if ok for any criminal idiot to walk around with glass vials of nerve gas thinking the Constitution gives him the right to endanger other people. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Anthony Scalia and “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” - Anthony Scalia So, you have the right to arm yourself and use guns for self defense, but no right is 100% limitless.
Okay, so you were unable to find any legislative power granted to congress that would allow them to restrict the use or possession of arms.
I showed you an expert interpretation of the Constitution, and I'll take Scalia's understanding any day over someone who thinks any criminal or crazy person has the right to carry nerve gas in a glass vial and endanger everyone around them. The government had a mandate to insure domestic tranquility, and your naïve view would make it all but impossible. You are welcome to your opinion, and as I said there is no point in having the same conversation a thousand times over. Have a nice day.
You're attributing that position to me? Also, in this recent exchange, you've mentioned the 2nd amendment and Scalia's interpretation of it. I'd point out that I'm not referring to the 2nd amendment, or any of the bill of rights. I'm referring to the legislative powers of congress, which are fully enumerated in 1:8. You will notice that that enumeration contains no power to limit the use or possesion of arms. On the other hand, each of the several sovereign states has full police powers, so any of them could (and do) have laws forbidding the possession of nerve gas.
If its not your position then you WOULD allow the government to restrict people right to carry weapons. The problem with people like you is that you refuse to own your view when its shown how absurd it can be when its applied to all scenarios. And violate the citizens Constitutional rights Some consistency would be helpful.
He was talking about Constitutional rights. I was referring to what the founders said, and did, and I also quoted their words. According to you they were gun banners. You are free to your opinion of course.
yeah and how at the time the SECOND did not have authority over state power-that was pre-McDonald. I know that for a fact since three of his clerks are close friends and I asked two of them
Remember. The government in the US is a federal government. It is comprised of states, which have full police powers, and they created the US government, to which they delegated a teeny-tiny list of legislative powers. They never delegated any legislative power to the US government to make any law that restricts the ownership or use of arms. To confirm this, you need simply read article 1, section 8. It's not absurd at all. The states retain full police powers while the constitution grants the US government zero police powers when it comes to arms. There are no "constitutional rights". There are simply rights. And the constitution contains several amendments restricting the US government from interfering in those rights. My position is 100% consistent: The states delegated a tiny set of powers to the US government. The US government may exercise ONLY those powers. All other powers, including police power, remain with the states.
Ok, so you are under the impression the States can create laws which violate the constitution. If that's your view, then so be it. Disagreed.
You want me to give you an example of something to support YOUR argument, which I disagreed with....? You said States have full police powers, which would mean they can do whatever they want, including violating the Constitution, and I said such police powers cannot violate the Constitution.
The states could only violate the constitution by exercising powers prohibited under article 1, section 10. Otherwise, it is literally impossible for a state to violate the constitution, because the constitution applies to the federal government. And please note that every state has its own constitution, some of which predate the US constitution. And you still have not dealt with my initial assertion that the US government has zero legislative authority where arms are concerned.
Then you do not consider the constitution the supreme law of the land (which it is of course). Can the State decide to start executing prisoners by burning them alive? No, because it would violate the 8th Amendment about cruel and unusual punishment. There are many examples where State laws have been found to be unconstitutional, and they have been voided. The Heller case is only one example among many.
Is that true? I don't remember saying that. I have enough opinions that I've actually said for you to talk about. You don't need to make them up. I guarantee burning prisoners alive would violate every state constitution in the union. Ah, you're talking about the incorporation doctrine. Which is actually not part of the constitution. So you are in favor of gun rights imposed on the states based upon incorporation?
Then I have no idea what you are trying to argue. You said its literally impossible for a state to violate the constitution, because the constitution applies only to the federal government. That would mean the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. It would violate the US Constitution, and hence it would be illegal.
I am fine with level headed SC justices doing their jobs, like Scalia did, and so far I have no complaints with the current guys. Abortion ruling, for example, was correct. I am sure none of them will argue that people should be able to arm themselves with glass vials of nerve gas. I'm just trying to understand what the other poster is arguing.
