Is gun control constitutional? Is it racist? Is it even possible?

danielpalos said:
You miss the point about our Second Amendment covering that State's sovereign right. There are no individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

Thus;
Click to expand...

yes. people are individuals. You're just wrong.

take your ignorance and totalitarianism and flee, please.
 
AssHatZombie said:
the bill of rights are individual freedoms.

You're a fucking idiot.

Please stop spreading legal disinformation.
Click to expand...

And all these “individual rights” in the Bill of Rights, can be and are, regulated, no Constitutional right is absolute, never have been
 
AssHatZombie said:
yes. people are individuals. You're just wrong.

take your ignorance and totalitarianism and flee, please.
Click to expand...
lol. You are very droll. Only well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union (not themselves as individuals.)

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...
 
archives said:
And all these “individual rights” in the Bill of Rights, can be and are, regulated, no Constitutional right is absolute, never have been
Click to expand...

the government was never given power or authority to define the limits of their own power, therefore, all rights are absolute, subject to due process of law in the 5th Amendment.
 
danielpalos said:
lol. You are very droll. Only well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union (not themselves as individuals.)
Click to expand...

Militia just meant citizens of fighting age, basically.

the right is guaranteed to THE PEOPLE.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the government was never given power or authority to define the limits of their own power, therefore, all rights are absolute, subject to due process of law in the 5th Amendment.
Click to expand...

That’s not true, when was the last time you saw a parade in your community that didn’t have a municipal permit ahead of time? Is it legal in your town to sell pornographic material to children? Can a newspaper print total fabrications attacking another without legal consequences? Can one walk into a Baptist service and start chanting Hare Krishna chants? And of course, can one shout fire in a crowed theater when there is no fire and not suffer criminal charges?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the government was never given power or authority to define the limits of their own power, therefore, all rights are absolute, subject to due process of law in the 5th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...
 
archives said:
That’s not true, when was the last time you saw a parade in your community that didn’t have a municipal permit ahead of time? Is it legal in your town to sell pornographic material to children? Can a newspaper print total fabrications attacking another without legal consequences? Can one walk into a Baptist service and start chanting Hare Krishna chants? And of course, can one shout fire in a crowed theater when there is no fire and not suffer criminal charges?
Click to expand...

hyperbole and fallacies.....where true rights are concerned, they are absolute. just because you allow your freedom to be infringed doesn't change that.
 
danielpalos said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

"Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
-letter to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817)
 
Yes, it is. So says SCOTUS in the Heller decision. Why is this even a topic? There is only one correct answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top