Biden is creating a new White House office focused on gun violence prevention

Yes. That provision of a gun to a criminal element should be prosecutable.

 

He's trying to get you to be inconsistent by tossing out something a normal "conservative" would froth at the mouth over.

 

Except the government is barred from infringing on the right to KEEP or BEAR arms.
So you CAN'T punish them for leaving their guns in a locked house or car. THAT is a reasonable precaution. You're not responsible for the crimes and torts of others, that's a bedrock deep basic common law right.

 

1) The criminal element can't be made a 2nd class citizen, and no laws during the founding restricted same. See NYSRPA v BRUEN. If you find them too dangerous to be out on the streets, keep them in prison with a longer sentence.
2) Sure it should as the laws on the books (many of which are unconstitutional) stand, I'm just explaining to the layperson the practical hurdles of doing so, and pointing out real life isn't CSI or Law and Order.

Further: I notice you dodged the question. I'll ask again: How many cases did the Canadian gun registry solve?

 

Yes, our crooked Republican court is strongly in favor of no gun regulations, regardless of the result and regardless of the security interests of states and cities.

I don't know anything about guns in Canada. As a private pilot, I once found that to fly in Canada I would be required to have a gun on board!!??

 

they passed them just the same, the SC have never declared them unconstitutional

like I said a well armed Militia could arm themselves with many things both sides agree they should not have, nuclear arms being one of them

 

agree, and a constitutional law today, could be found unconstitutional tomorrow, depending on the judges

 

the one supreme court case that sort of dealt with that-if interpreted correctly would strike down bans on machine guns since they are issued to the national guard, state police and the infantry

 

the problematic behavior is stealing guns

 

do you thing that security issues of states and cities overcome the constitution? Most gun control fans seem to think that the constitution is a mere inconvenience that should be ignored for the greater good.

 

I agree with that sentence.

 

The SC interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absolutely absurd. In fact, they ignore half the amendment!! They ignore the stated purpose of the amendment. And, that is the start of the problem.

Beyond that, ALL our rights have limitations for issues such as public safety and security. For example, speech rights aren't absolute.

 

so what do you think the second should mean-if I read Article one section eight and study the history of that time-it is clear they were banning the new federal government from any gun control powers involving private citizens

what type of government has the power to limit free speech and under what circumstances? and where does it get that power?

 

The USSC supports limits related to legitimate and serious objectives that can not be met by other means.

 

and what are those and where did the power come from. the rational basis nonsense is no longer good law

 

You should investigate this.

 

I don't ever recall a valid exception to the tenth amendment based on the government somehow being granted additional powers related to serious objectives that were not based on article one section eight powers

 

I taught constitutional law. it is you who should investigate this since your assertion makes no sense. now I realize that some democrats-especially during the FDR and LBJ administrations probably agreed with you

 

Sure. And, the USSC. You should NOT have been teaching that topic!

 

rather than posting silly insults-can you tell me where your view of government power that you described above is supported in the constitution or in applicable case law

where is the support for this comment

The USSC supports limits related to legitimate and serious objectives that can not be met by other means.

 

Yet plenty do have them. Regardless of illegality they have them. And they don’t have to register them, can’t get in trouble for not registering, so what crime would registration be stopping?

 

And whether or not something "impedes" the right, is a judgement call. I am as familiar with the English language, as yourself -- or perhaps, moreso, considering your failure to understand that most words contain an element of subjectivity, in their interpretation.

The word "running," also has a meaning. That does not imply that what you consider to be "running," I might not think of as a moderately paced "jogging," or even just as "brisk walking." Do you now see how that works? Some words are clear cut, and not very debatable. Most would agree on whether or not a particular object qualified as a pencil, for instance. But whether something "impedes," or "infringes," is quite another matter, allowing for differing interpretations.

One does not typically say, for example, that they were "impeded," in their ability to arrive at some destination, by the door to their house, and to their car, which both needed to be opened, and then reclosed, as well. In fact, they had also been impeded by the car's failure to start, without forcing them to insert, and then turn, their key in the car's ignition. Additionally, there had been, at times, other vehicles on the road, further impeding the person who was now, quite understandably, late in his arrival. After being impeded by stop signs, and traffic lights, not to mention the curves in the road, preventing the driver's travelling at full speed, it would be a miracle, should the thoroughly impeded person have arrived on time-- no one is going to buy that excuse.

There is likewise, a minimum litmus, that must be met, to say that something truly "infringes" on a right. If this word, and all words, were so unambiguously understood, as you present to be the case, we would have little need of a Supreme Court, to interpret either our laws or our Constitution.

Yes, words have definite meanings, we can look up, if we disagree on them. These definitions, however, are composed of only more words, over which further interpretive disparities could manifest, among different readers. Some ideas, are just not as clearly defined, or definable, as what constitutes a cubic foot of space.

THINK about whatever it is, that you READ.

 

Haha, good thing I'm not a normal conservative.

 

I'm normal. I'm also familiar with the buttons. You don't froth at the mouth over them, you froth at the mouth after eating them.

It's normal for conservatives to put principles first. I think you are just more focused than most.

 

Can we agree that Congress doesn't have plenary power but only has the powers specifically granted to it in the constitution?