It's time. It's time to repeal the second amendment (revisited)

you can keep awarding yourself trophies that no one else recognizes. We have guns. you don't like it-you cannot do anything about it. end of story

 

Because that is hard. Banning guns is way easier.

 

Nice red herring.

 

And how do you think that Confressman defines weapons of war? Given the left's penchant for redefining terms to whatever they want them to mean I'm guessing he means every firearm of any sort. And when that doesn't work they will turn to confiscation.

 

He's ignored every revolution in history. Guerilla warfare is so common throughout history it's astounding he still doesn't understand it. Not much of a historian I guess.

 

have you checked out that clown's background? It's a classic case of him thinking that gun owners oppose everything he stands for-affirmative action, socialism and the alphabet agenda.

 

Well, he IS a New York democrat.

 

That's the very definition of a straw man argument.

 

Whatever words I post as my rebuttal, they become MY WORDS. I take ownership of them.

Refute them, IF YOU CAN.

Note that there is no 'you, me, or I' on this forum, we are ANONYMOUS.

The ONLY thing that matters is THE ARGUMENT. naturally, credit should be given to sources, but AI output is in the public domain.

AI is right 90% of the time, and the 10% that is wrong I do my best to fact check before posting. AI has made amazing advances in the last year or so.

I therefore believe everything I posted was accurate. IF you find and inaccuracy and you are correct, I will not blame the AI for the incorrect claim.

Therefore, you are free to REBUT IF YOU CAN. Any rationalization to do otherwise is a COP OUT.

Now then, let's what what your rebuttal actually is:

The art of using an AI for data searching is the art of 'prompt engineering'. The caliber of output is commensurate with instructions and prompt engineering. I've been studying this for over a year now, and your sentiment really isn't accurate at all. AI does amazing things. But fact claims have to be factchecked, as they are sometimes wrong, and this is a given. But as long as what is posted is fact checked and accurate, that is ALL that matters, and you are free to challenge any post one makes on this forum.

ANd no reasonable person, right or left, will disagree with that point. Except, perhaps, the NRA.

You make valid points, but your points are not in the argument being made here.

No, I'm arguing for the FREEDOM to regulate as states, regulators, see fit. As to the nature of any reg, such will be debated in the legislative process.

Like all regulations, there are always folks who don't like the regulation, whether you approve of the reg or not.

That's democracy.

Not the best system, but it's better than all the alternatives.

 

The simple stone has been a weapon of war for millenia. Congressmen don't define weapons of war. We all know what they are. Congressmen don't have the courage to admit that they want confiscate all the legally owned guns since they can't confiscate the illigally owned ones because they don't know about them.

 

Removal of 2A doesn't quell Congress's power to regulate items not in the bill of rights. Removing 2A would, indeed, pave the way for states's having more freedom to regulate.

No one said 'owning a gun isn't commerce'. What was said was Congress can regulate firearms with respect to matters of interstate commerce, which IS an aspect of the gun industry.

The Necessary and Proper clause would be one basis for congressional legislation on matters of national concern, such as setting standards for states to follow and modify therefrom.

The point is your claim is inaccurate, probably stemming from your misunderstanding of the 10th amendment.


So, it appears that the clause you are referring to is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: "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."

The Tenth Amendment is often cited as a textual foundation for the principle of federalism, which emphasizes the division of powers between the federal government and the states. However, the language of the Tenth Amendment does not necessarily mean that unenumerated items can ONLY be regulated by the states. Here's why:

1. Broad Interpretation of Federal Powers: The federal government has often been granted broad powers under other constitutional provisions, such as the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. These have been interpreted to give the federal government considerable regulatory authority, even in areas not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
   
   
2. Supremacy Clause: The Constitution also contains a Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law when the two conflict. This means that even if a power is initially reserved to the states, federal law can supersede state law under certain conditions.
   
   
3. Judicial Interpretation: Courts have played a significant role in interpreting the scope of federal and state powers. The interpretation of the Tenth Amendment and other constitutional provisions can change over time based on court rulings.
   
   
4. "Or to the People": The amendment also mentions that powers are reserved "to the States respectively, or to the people." This phrase has been the subject of legal and scholarly debate, but it suggests that some powers may reside with individuals rather than any level of government.
   
   
5. Concurrent Powers: There are also areas where both the federal and state governments have the authority to regulate, known as concurrent powers.
   

So, while the Tenth Amendment does reserve unenumerated powers "to the States respectively, or to the people," this does not mean that such powers can only ever be regulated by the states. The actual distribution of powers is a complex interplay of constitutional text, judicial interpretation, and historical practice.

 

We aren't the baby in your story with power we can't handle, those that wish to enter into a conspiracy to violate the basic rights of others are the babies attempting to exercise illegitimate power, and you better keep your checkbook ready.

MAKE THE RIGHTS VIOLATING BASTARDS PAY: D.C. agrees to pay millions to gun owners for violating their Second Amendment rights.



'The District of Columbia has settled a class-action lawsuit filed by six gun owners who were arrested in our nation’s capitol for violating gun control laws that have since been struck down by the courts, agreeing to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiffs and their attorneys for infringing on their Second Amendment rights.'

They need to pay out $Millions every time they misuse the power of government to violate the rights of Free Citizens.

'U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave preliminary approval to the settlement agreement on Monday following years of litigation. Lamberth had previously ruled in September 2021 that D.C. arrested, jailed, prosecuted and seized guns from six people “based on an unconstitutional set of laws” and violated their Second Amendment rights.'

'Those arrested include the lead plaintiff, Maggie Smith, a nurse from North Carolina who was pulled over by D.C. police for a routine traffic stop in June 2014, according to court documents. Smith, who had no criminal record, informed officers her car contained a pistol that was licensed in her home state — for which police promptly arrested her, seizing her gun and taking her to jail, where she stayed overnight.'

'In another case, Gerard Cassagnol, a Maryland resident, was driving home from his job in Northern Virginia when he got pulled over in the District. When police asked whether he had a gun in the vehicle, he said yes, giving police the combination to the locked safe where he kept it. He was ultimately jailed for two nights on the gun charges.'

'Cassagnol lost his job after his arrest. Another plaintiff had his Top Secret security clearance placed under review.'

'While D.C. argued at the time that the arrestees should have done their research about D.C. gun laws, or “attempt” to license them, before driving through the District with guns, Lamberth found that those actions would have been futile. “There were no actions that the plaintiffs could have taken during the time period in question that would have allowed them to carry a gun for self-defense in the District of Columbia,” Lamberth wrote in the 2021 ruling.'

 

Congress can regulate commerce among the several states. In what way would you like the buying and selling of firearms among the states to be regulated?

It says "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", which brings us back to exactly which power you are citing.

 

I get it, you're losing and have run out of responses. You don't need to embarrass yourself, just don't respond.

 

Exactly. They barely even try to hide it any more.

 

state legislators who pass unconstitutional gun restrictions need to be held personally liable and subject to criminal charges under 42 USC 1983 (deprivation of constitutional rights under the color of state law)-the same statute that allowed the feds to prosecute the cops who beat up Rodney King

 

Only authoritarian fascist want to strip American citizens of their rights.

You people calling Trump the fascist are looking in the wrong direction.

 

Getting rid of stuff and/or attempting to control the proliferation of stuff doesn't work. On a global scale, consider nuclear weapons. As they have proliferated, what has kept these weapons in check is the consequences of using such. If North Korea decided to make a nuclear statement, they know within five minutes they would cease to exist.

This is the same type of mechanism you need in place with guns. If you are convicted of using a gun to commit a crime, you lose your freedom [10-15 years, no parole]. Second offence, life. If you are convicted of firing a gun at somebody, then life, no parole. If you are convicted of shooting somebody [except in self-defense], death penalty.

Treat a gun like it was a car. There is a reason why people do not use cars as weapons very often. Run somebody over and see what happens to you.

 

Exactly, and there are a number Libertarian Law Professors also itching to bring civil actions for conspiracy to violate civil rights against these law violating bastards. Lock 'em up and/or drain their accounts seems to be the only thing that breaks their compulsion to violate the rights of others.

 

if the USSC strikes down a gun law in say Illinois and turds in Oregon pass a similar law, then those turds should be liable.

 

Who needs those dangerous Rights and freedoms? Those things are scary...

 

so you oppose incorporation of the bill of rights. States should be able to ban gay or mixed race marriage? deny minorities voting rights? or (not a constitutional right but some claim it is) abortion?

 

The leftist movement caters to those who are afraid to be responsible for their own destiny and wish to outsource decision making (and the consequences of a bad decision) to the government. They empower those who want to run the lives of others

 

[QUOTE="Chickpea, post: 1074403572, member: 136597" Owning a gun is not commerce.[/QUOTE]

No, but selling or buying a gun certainly is.

 

So, moving to another subject is your best argument.