You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question on guns
- Thread starter Mr.Badguy
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Why? That is exactly what they did. They did not fear the federal government. They guys writing, were the government. The country had just been established. But they feared England returning to stop the American experiment from taking root. England did in 1812.
every piece of documentation suggests that they feared a strong central government. the guys writing it were NOT the government because the government had not been elected yet. WE THE PEOPLE ratified the constitution that created the government. It is an idiotic notion that the only reason they created an army was to defend against England only.
Why? That is exactly what they did. They did not fear the federal government. They guys writing, were the government. The country had just been established. But they feared England returning to stop the American experiment from taking root. England did in 1812.
Didn't fear the federal government? See, when you say crap like that you just expose yourself as a deluded goofball willing to throw any crap on the wall to promote your politics. The entire debate over the Constitution was Anti-Federalists fearing the mass of power being conferred and Federalists trying to alleviate those fears by explaining the proposed Constitution and dissecting the conditions created by it (or not created by it).
Federalist 46 is a perfect example; Madison talks about the standing army being "opposed" by armed citizens . . . at a ratio of 17-20 armed citizens for each soldier.
Madison's ratio's remain today within a couple percentage points; a nation of 321 million, a "standing army" at 1% of the population - 2.9 million active duty and reserve, opposed by 80 million citizens with arms in their hands.
Why? That is exactly what they did. They did not fear the federal government. They guys writing, were the government. The country had just been established. But they feared England returning to stop the American experiment from taking root. England did in 1812.
The guys writing it probably did not fear the central government since they were the ones wanting to create a much stronger central government than the current government under the Articles of Confederation. However, those Anti-federalists who opposed a stronger central government feared it and that is the reason for the Bill of Rights. The founders agreed to add amendments to limit the powers of the central government if the Anti-federalists supported ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights limited the powers only of the federal government and did not restrict the states because they did not fear state power.
every piece of documentation suggests that they feared a strong central government. the guys writing it were NOT the government because the government had not been elected yet. WE THE PEOPLE ratified the constitution that created the government. It is an idiotic notion that the only reason they created an army was to defend against England only.
They did not fear the current central government because it had almost no power which is why they wanted to revise it to create a stronger one. Many argued they acted illegally since they did more than revise the Articles but created an entirely new government. And, it did not require a unanimous vote to make those changes as the Articles required.
what judicial activism?
Overturning a law passed by a legislative body. Judicial activism includes the judiciary substituting its own views for those elected lawmakers. It is not just a term used to describe a decision we don't like. We may support the decision but it is still judicial activism to declare a law unconstitutional.
It is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founding fathers and framers of the constitution (let alone ALL of the state delegates and the people that voted) would allow the newly created federal government any shred of power over their firearms after they had just won independence from their former central government that tried to impose power over their firearms.
You have been arguing they can prohibit felons from owning firearms. Is that absolute stupidity?
ah, so this is your problem. you look at the constitution as a document that restricts the people when it is actually a document that restricts the government. your education failed you.
Not at all. You are making assumptions which are not found in my posts. My post that you responded to makes the point that government cannot restrict our constitutional rights; that includes taking away any rights (freedom of association) from felons unless they agree to that restriction during probation and parole (they also agree to allow warrantless searches).
I'm trying not educate you on it. You refuse to learn.
Can felons purchase firearms under federal law (unless restored)? If not, then it is because government has regulated that activity whether justified by the 2nd, 5th, interstate commerce clause, or other constitutional provision.
In 2017 the 3rd Circuit held prohibiting nonviolent felons from owning weapons is unconstitutional.
Did Heller disturb any SCOTUS precedent?
What specifically do you consider judicial activism in Heller?
Surely it can not be the holding that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right.
In Breyer's minority opinion, the dissenters all agreed that when examining the 2nd Amendment the "starting point . . . based on the Court's precedent and today’s opinions, [which[ the entire Court subscribes, [is that] the 2nd Amendment protects an “individual” right." (of course the dissenters decide to dismiss and ignore the determinations forced by that conclusion)
So, besides the dissenters going off on their goofy tangents, where's the activism?
One view of judicial activism is that it substitutes judicial opinion for legislation passed by political bodies. Some define it as basing decisions on opinions but that basically applies to all decisions.
Some (not me) even argue any decision ruling a law unconstitutional is activism since there is nothing in the Constitution granting the courts the power of judicial review.
Heller did set a precedent because before it there was no prohibition on D. C. from banning handguns.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
They did not fear the current central government because it had almost no power which is why they wanted to revise it to create a stronger one. Many argued they acted illegally since they did more than revise the Articles but created an entirely new government. And, it did not require a unanimous vote to make those changes as the Articles required.
where the hell did you learn that idiotic piece of bullshit history from?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
You have been arguing they can prohibit felons from owning firearms. Is that absolute stupidity?
that wasn't me.
where the hell did you learn that idiotic piece of bullshit history from?
It is basic American history. You aren't familiar with the Articles of Confederation and the constitutional convention called to revise the Articles because of the excessively weak central government? Apparently you are not smarter about American history.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It is basic American history. You aren't familiar with the Articles of Confederation and the constitutional convention called to revise the Articles because of the excessively weak central government? Apparently you are not smarter about American history.
i didn't say that the redid it because of the weakness, I said they feared a central government because of their experience. THAT is why they wrote a document that limits that federal government.
i didn't say that the redid it because of the weakness, I said they feared a central government because of their experience. THAT is why they wrote a document that limits that federal government.
They certainly created a government that fractured governmental power as much as possible to keep any faction from gaining control (including a majority). But, they didn't fear a central government enough to keep them from changing from a government with all the power in the states to one with a much stronger central government that could tax the people directly, raise an army, coin money, and regulate interstate commerce--all things the Articles could not do. Certainly Hamilton did not fear a central government because he wanted the federal government to have power over the states.
They did not favor a Bill of Rights because they thought it unnecessary--that would have been a big mistake.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
They certainly created a government that fractured governmental power as much as possible to keep any faction from gaining control (including a majority). But, they didn't fear a central government enough to keep them from changing from a government with all the power in the states to one with a much stronger central government that could tax the people directly, raise an army, coin money, and regulate interstate commerce--all things the Articles could not do. Certainly Hamilton did not fear a central government because he wanted the federal government to have power over the states.
They did not favor a Bill of Rights because they thought it unnecessary--that would have been a big mistake.
the power to tax people directly didn't exist at the time of the ratification of the constitution, so i'm left to believe that you know jack shit about most of the constitution or its history.
the power to tax people directly didn't exist at the time of the ratification of the constitution, so i'm left to believe that you know jack shit about most of the constitution or its history.
I'm left to believe you have never read the Constitution: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It clearly allows a direct tax (tax on property or per head) but it had to be apportioned.
Can felons purchase firearms under federal law (unless restored)? If not, then it is because government has regulated that activity whether justified by the 2nd, 5th, interstate commerce clause, or other constitutional provision.
In 2017 the 3rd Circuit held prohibiting nonviolent felons from owning weapons is unconstitutional.
If you commit a felony and due process is applied, your 1st, 2nd, etc rights can be limited. That's not taking them away as some might suggest. It's the person choosing to do an action loses the ability to do something else (own guns), it's due to their choice of having done that action.
The judiciary is supposed to decide whether a thing is legal and meets constitutional requirements. Lawmakers are a motley crew of people with varying degrees of intelligence and honesty. Declaring a bill legal and constitutional is the function of the court, it is absolutely not activism.