2nd Amendment Question

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
One of the most dear held rights we have, under our Constitution, is the right to bear arms, own Guns etc. There is little doubts in the minds of Constitutional scholars as to the reason that the amendment was placed there however given the many changes in our country and the world we live in how does the 2nd amendment fit in today?

Is it a mandate for all homeowners and citizens to arm themselves for the potential call to arms against a foe or against the government if such ever needed to happen.

Would that also include the right and freedom to purchase military type weapons that are meant and designed for killing man and not for just hunting or should it cover only hunting type guns and military weapons be excluded?

I sincerely feel that the original Constitutional amendment supported weapons that could be and would be put to use against a foe in a military setting. Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
One of the most dear held rights we have, under our Constitution, is the right to bear arms, own Guns etc. There is little doubts in the minds of Constitutional scholars as to the reason that the amendment was placed there however given the many changes in our country and the world we live in how does the 2nd amendment fit in today?

Is it a mandate for all homeowners and citizens to arm themselves for the potential call to arms against a foe or against the government if such ever needed to happen.

Would that also include the right and freedom to purchase military type weapons that are meant and designed for killing man and not for just hunting or should it cover only hunting type guns and military weapons be excluded?

I sincerely feel that the original Constitutional amendment supported weapons that could be and would be put to use against a foe in a military setting. Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons?

Ah, yes--we should re-frame our laws and regulations so that any citizen who wants one should be able to purchase and maintain a hand-held rocket launcher, a bazooka, or even a tactical nuclear weapon! NOT!! NOT EVER, gbrk! That would create a level of insecurity that outstrips any fears about what the government --in the minds of the arch-government haters of our time--might do to impair our liberties.

Would you really want the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") to have free access to armaments used by our military? Do you want some druglord to be able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
That would create a level of insecurity that outstrips any fears about what the government --in the minds of the arch-government haters of our time--might do to impair our liberties.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
One of the most dear held rights we have, under our Constitution, is the right to bear arms, own Guns etc. There is little doubts in the minds of Constitutional scholars as to the reason that the amendment was placed there however given the many changes in our country and the world we live in how does the 2nd amendment fit in today?

Is it a mandate for all homeowners and citizens to arm themselves for the potential call to arms against a foe or against the government if such ever needed to happen.

Would that also include the right and freedom to purchase military type weapons that are meant and designed for killing man and not for just hunting or should it cover only hunting type guns and military weapons be excluded?

I sincerely feel that the original Constitutional amendment supported weapons that could be and would be put to use against a foe in a military setting. Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons?

Ah, yes--we should re-frame our laws and regulations so that any citizen who wants one should be able to purchase and maintain a hand-held rocket launcher, a bazooka, or even a tactical nuclear weapon! NOT!! NOT EVER, gbrk! That would create a level of insecurity that outstrips any fears about what the government --in the minds of the arch-government haters of our time--might do to impair our liberties.

Would you really want the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") to have free access to armaments used by our military? Do you want some druglord to be able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors?

In your zeal to jump on "gun right fanatics"...you totally missed gbrk's point:

...Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons

He's asking a question...and he seems to have made up his mind to the answer...that YOU would agree with...

The problem Constitutionally is not can "arms" be limited...but WHO gets to limit them.

Neither the Constitution or the central government "gives" us ANY rights. As the founding generation believed WE "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

The purpose of the Constitution is not to GIVE rights but PROTECT them. And the limits imposed by the Constitution was soley on the central government...what the central government could NOT do.

So basically the central government has NO power it infringe free speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc.

That power is reserved to the states and the people of each state. So gun ownership can and alwasy could be regulated from a state level...according to each state constitution.

And by the way...yes gbrk...the founding generation's idea was to have an armed people to...hunt..sure...self defense in the home...of course...but the main reason was to defend themselves from a tyrannical central government.

quote:

Printz v. United States (1997) (opinion by Scalia) (Thomas, concurring)

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
One of the most dear held rights we have, under our Constitution, is the right to bear arms, own Guns etc. There is little doubts in the minds of Constitutional scholars as to the reason that the amendment was placed there however given the many changes in our country and the world we live in how does the 2nd amendment fit in today?

Is it a mandate for all homeowners and citizens to arm themselves for the potential call to arms against a foe or against the government if such ever needed to happen.

Would that also include the right and freedom to purchase military type weapons that are meant and designed for killing man and not for just hunting or should it cover only hunting type guns and military weapons be excluded?

I sincerely feel that the original Constitutional amendment supported weapons that could be and would be put to use against a foe in a military setting. Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons?

Ah, yes--we should re-frame our laws and regulations so that any citizen who wants one should be able to purchase and maintain a hand-held rocket launcher, a bazooka, or even a tactical nuclear weapon! NOT!! NOT EVER, gbrk! That would create a level of insecurity that outstrips any fears about what the government --in the minds of the arch-government haters of our time--might do to impair our liberties.

Would you really want the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") to have free access to armaments used by our military? Do you want some druglord to be able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors?

quote:

Originally posted by onepatriot7:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
One of the most dear held rights we have, under our Constitution, is the right to bear arms, own Guns etc. There is little doubts in the minds of Constitutional scholars as to the reason that the amendment was placed there however given the many changes in our country and the world we live in how does the 2nd amendment fit in today?

Is it a mandate for all homeowners and citizens to arm themselves for the potential call to arms against a foe or against the government if such ever needed to happen.

Would that also include the right and freedom to purchase military type weapons that are meant and designed for killing man and not for just hunting or should it cover only hunting type guns and military weapons be excluded?

I sincerely feel that the original Constitutional amendment supported weapons that could be and would be put to use against a foe in a military setting. Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons?

Ah, yes--we should re-frame our laws and regulations so that any citizen who wants one should be able to purchase and maintain a hand-held rocket launcher, a bazooka, or even a tactical nuclear weapon! NOT!! NOT EVER, gbrk! That would create a level of insecurity that outstrips any fears about what the government --in the minds of the arch-government haters of our time--might do to impair our liberties.

Would you really want the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") to have free access to armaments used by our military? Do you want some druglord to be able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors?

up until now, i've just read your post and in my mind disagree with most of it, however, your ridiculous response to this post has eaten to the core. in my humble opinion, your a bone-head!! i apologize in advance for the personal attack but my goodness, you want to just let us fall prey to socialism or communism or some other "ism" which goes against the very fabric upon which this country was founded.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by onepatriot7:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
One of the most dear held rights we have, under our Constitution, is the right to bear arms, own Guns etc. There is little doubts in the minds of Constitutional scholars as to the reason that the amendment was placed there however given the many changes in our country and the world we live in how does the 2nd amendment fit in today?

Is it a mandate for all homeowners and citizens to arm themselves for the potential call to arms against a foe or against the government if such ever needed to happen.

Would that also include the right and freedom to purchase military type weapons that are meant and designed for killing man and not for just hunting or should it cover only hunting type guns and military weapons be excluded?

I sincerely feel that the original Constitutional amendment supported weapons that could be and would be put to use against a foe in a military setting. Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons?

Ah, yes--we should re-frame our laws and regulations so that any citizen who wants one should be able to purchase and maintain a hand-held rocket launcher, a bazooka, or even a tactical nuclear weapon! NOT!! NOT EVER, gbrk! That would create a level of insecurity that outstrips any fears about what the government --in the minds of the arch-government haters of our time--might do to impair our liberties.

Would you really want the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") to have free access to armaments used by our military? Do you want some druglord to be able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors?

up until now, i've just read your post and in my mind disagree with most of it, however, your ridiculous response to this post has eaten to the core. in my humble opinion, your a bone-head!! i apologize in advance for the personal attack but my goodness, you want to just let us fall prey to socialism or communism or some other "ism" which goes against the very fabric upon which this country was founded.

An interesting, if somewhat illiterate ("your[sic] a bonehead"] response. Since you are in disagreement with what I posted, it would appear that you therefore would be in favor of the extremes of weapons ownership that I cited, i.e. you would be in favor of the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") having free access to armaments used by our military and you would not object to some druglord being able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors. Your endorsement of these forms of weapons ownership would be based on their prospective essentiality to our being able to repel the advances of socialism or communism or some other "ism" against the very fabric upon which this country was founded. Yes, THAT would be the "logical" conclusion of your disagreement with me. Ah, yes, if the Red menace were to move against this nation, it would surely be the street gangs, the mentally defective and the drug lords who would instantly morph into patriots and march forth, armaments at the ready, to defend the honor of Old Glory! Who, one now must ask, is the "bonehead"?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
I missed no point. There were two possible kinds of response to gbrk's post--to agree that any and all military arms should be available to the citizenry or to disagree with that. I disagreed. You are just guessing as to whether gbrk has decided the issue for himself. Whether he has or has not, my notable contribution lends value to the discussion that otherwise would not be here to enlighten the forum!

quote:

Originally posted by onepatriot7:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by onepatriot7:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
One of the most dear held rights we have, under our Constitution, is the right to bear arms, own Guns etc. There is little doubts in the minds of Constitutional scholars as to the reason that the amendment was placed there however given the many changes in our country and the world we live in how does the 2nd amendment fit in today?

Is it a mandate for all homeowners and citizens to arm themselves for the potential call to arms against a foe or against the government if such ever needed to happen.

Would that also include the right and freedom to purchase military type weapons that are meant and designed for killing man and not for just hunting or should it cover only hunting type guns and military weapons be excluded?

I sincerely feel that the original Constitutional amendment supported weapons that could be and would be put to use against a foe in a military setting. Then our military wasn't what it is today so is it justified to limit (today) citizens from obtaining military type assault weapons?

Ah, yes--we should re-frame our laws and regulations so that any citizen who wants one should be able to purchase and maintain a hand-held rocket launcher, a bazooka, or even a tactical nuclear weapon! NOT!! NOT EVER, gbrk! That would create a level of insecurity that outstrips any fears about what the government --in the minds of the arch-government haters of our time--might do to impair our liberties.

Would you really want the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") to have free access to armaments used by our military? Do you want some druglord to be able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors?

up until now, i've just read your post and in my mind disagree with most of it, however, your ridiculous response to this post has eaten to the core. in my humble opinion, your a bone-head!! i apologize in advance for the personal attack but my goodness, you want to just let us fall prey to socialism or communism or some other "ism" which goes against the very fabric upon which this country was founded.

An interesting, if somewhat illiterate ("your[sic] a bonehead"] response. Since you are in disagreement with what I posted, it would appear that you therefore would be in favor of the extremes of weapons ownership that I cited, i.e. you would be in favor of the street gangs or the undiscovered mentally disordered ("Why he just seemed like the nicest fellow on the block.") having free access to armaments used by our military and you would not object to some druglord being able to spend his ill-gotten gains to buy a bunker-buster bomb with which to erase his competitors. Your endorsement of these forms of weapons ownership would be based on their prospective essentiality to our being able to repel the advances of socialism or communism or some other "ism" against the very fabric upon which this country was founded. Yes, THAT would be the "logical" conclusion of your disagreement with me. Ah, yes, if the Red menace were to move against this nation, it would surely be the street gangs, the mentally defective and the drug lords who would instantly morph into patriots and march forth, armaments at the ready, to defend the honor of Old Glory! Who, one now must ask, is the "bonehead"?

i still say "you're" (forgive my poor grammar when arguing in protest)the bone head. your assertion that "military style rifles" are somehow in the same class as nuclear weapons and rocket launchers is ludicrous.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Do I understand you to endorse a Second Amendment right for ordinary citizens to possess bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers, holding these at the ready for deployment against what they might perceive as a tyrannical central government?

quote:

Sez BFred07:
I could do some high style huntin with one of them rocket launchers. If the rockets are heat seeking I won't even have to aim and can knock out a whole flock of geese with one shot and best of all they would done be cooked before they hit the ground! Only problem if they're already cooked ol Comet might eat them before he fetches them back to me.

quote:

Originally posted by CageTheElephant:

quote:

Sez BFred07:
I could do some high style huntin with one of them rocket launchers. If the rockets are heat seeking I won't even have to aim and can knock out a whole flock of geese with one shot and best of all they would done be cooked before they hit the ground! Only problem if they're already cooked ol Comet might eat them before he fetches them back to me.

Yeah...but would you be "OK" with Ol' Dick Cheney being able to tote one?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Do I understand you to endorse a Second Amendment right for ordinary citizens to possess bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers, holding these at the ready for deployment against what they might perceive as a tyrannical central government?

I know you were replying to onepatriot7...but to answer in regards to the 2nd Amendment right for ordinary citizens to possess bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers, holding these at the ready for deployment against what they might perceive as a tyrannical central government?...simply yes...and more in depth...the federal government is restricted to have any say because of the 2nd Amendment.

But once again...the 2nd Amendment as the entire Constitution is a restriction on the federal government...the states can and always could "regulate" the "bearing of arms"...

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Do I understand you to endorse a Second Amendment right for ordinary citizens to possess bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers, holding these at the ready for deployment against what they might perceive as a tyrannical central government?

I know you were replying to onepatriot7...but to answer in regards to the 2nd Amendment right for ordinary citizens to possess bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers, holding these at the ready for deployment against what they might perceive as a tyrannical central government?...simply yes...and more in depth...the federal government is restricted to have any say because of the 2nd Amendment.

But once again...the 2nd Amendment as the entire Constitution is a restriction on the federal government...the states can and always could "regulate" the "bearing of arms"...

Do you enjoy life in that fanciful little wishful-thinking dream world you inhabit?

quote:

Originally posted by BFred07:
We should remember that when our founding father's drafted the Bill of Rights that they did not have to consider things such as rocket launchers, icbm's, nukes, f-16's, and a host of other weapons of war that were not available or even thought of at that time. If those things had been available at the time I believe it is a safe bet that the second amendment would have been worded much differently.

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:
It's a state's right to regulate aside from Federal Firearms Violations for automatic weapons and such.

quote:

I pretty sure the fed's can regulate materials that it would take to build nuke's without violating the 2nd Amendment...I don't think F-16's, etc is the same as "arms"...

quote:

Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
Interesting debate. One that has continued since the original adoption of the Bill of Rights. It all boils down to an analysis of the original intent, and that is hard to grasp since some documentation shows disagreement when it was written.

People somehow feel that if they can't own a fully automatic gun to grind Bambi into hamburger then they are threatened. I think people should have a right to own guns if they have not abused the right (robbery, murder, etc.). But I question the motives of someone who wants something for the psychological impact without reasonable need. I hope the day doesn't come when we all need fully automatic guns.

I do think it is interesting that the gun industry propagated the rumor that a Democratic controlled government would take everyone's guns away. It worked for a while as the fright method caused people to "stock up". Maybe it makes everyone feel better now.

quote:

Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
It all boils down to an analysis of the original intent, and that is hard to grasp since some documentation shows disagreement when it was written.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by BFred07:
We should remember that when our founding father's drafted the Bill of Rights that they did not have to consider things such as rocket launchers, icbm's, nukes, f-16's, and a host of other weapons of war that were not available or even thought of at that time. If those things had been available at the time I believe it is a safe bet that the second amendment would have been worded much differently.

I pretty sure the fed's can regulate materials that it would take to build nuke's without violating the 2nd Amendment...I don't think F-16's, etc is the same as "arms"...

As far as the wording of the 2nd amendment and modern weapons...I don't believe the founding generation would have changed anything...because once again...guns, weapons, etc COULD be regulated...just NOT by the federal government.

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:
It's a state's right to regulate aside from Federal Firearms Violations for automatic weapons and such.

Well, as pointed out above...there should be NO "Federal Fireams Violations"...that power is reserved to the states and the people.

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:
The federal laws are a matter of opinion here. Neither you nor I can change these. I personally believe there should be federal laws regarding the alteration of weapons and the use of weapons in certain crimes and by certain people. I should have explained myself further WHILE AGREEING WITH YOUR POSITION. State laws commonly are written without teeth necessary for proper enforcement. For example. True story. A man convicted of burglary and various felony drug crimes brandished a handgun during an argument at a grocery store. A police officer saw this and intervened. After a brief foot chase the man was in custody. Because of the way the state law was written regarding "persons prohibited" the only charges the DA would consider were misdemeanor with little or no jail time. The ATF came in and charged him with a federal crime and now he is in prison instead of selling drugs and pulling guns on people at grocery stores. Those are the laws I believe are necessary, Just my little opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by WH:

quote:

Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
Interesting debate. One that has continued since the original adoption of the Bill of Rights. It all boils down to an analysis of the original intent, and that is hard to grasp since some documentation shows disagreement when it was written.

People somehow feel that if they can't own a fully automatic gun to grind Bambi into hamburger then they are threatened. I think people should have a right to own guns if they have not abused the right (robbery, murder, etc.). But I question the motives of someone who wants something for the psychological impact without reasonable need. I hope the day doesn't come when we all need fully automatic guns.

I do think it is interesting that the gun industry propagated the rumor that a Democratic controlled government would take everyone's guns away. It worked for a while as the fright method caused people to "stock up". Maybe it makes everyone feel better now.

You do realize that the recent SC ruling was only ONE vote that allowed the continued ownership of guns? Thats scary...I wish the four that voted against would explain why our constitution no longer applies.

quote:

Posted by AlabamaSon:
You do realize I don't care. The Supreme Court made a decision and that is how our government works. If they had decided differently then I would have said the same thing.

quote:

People somehow feel that if they can't own a fully automatic gun to grind Bambi into hamburger then they are threatened.

quote:

But I question the motives of someone who wants something for the psychological impact without reasonable need.

quote:

Originally posted by CageTheElephant:

quote:

Posted by AlabamaSon:
You do realize I don't care. The Supreme Court made a decision and that is how our government works. If they had decided differently then I would have said the same thing.

No... I think you really do care.
I think had the Court decided against the 2nd Amendment, you would have been very happy.
It shows in the bitterness of your original post.

quote:

People somehow feel that if they can't own a fully automatic gun to grind Bambi into hamburger then they are threatened.

What's that got to do with it? Anti hunting?
YES they are threatened, threatened by those whom apply the 2nd Amendment to "hunting", using words such as "grinding" and "Bambi" such as yourself.

quote:

But I question the motives of someone who wants something for the psychological impact without reasonable need.

And who are you to decide if it's "psychological impact"...or maybe just because of historical interest? Or maybe I just want one? I have obeyed the law. I have no criminal record, yet you want to pre-judge my "intent"?
Who would you trust to determine "reasonable need"? Maybe you don't "need" a car that will go 140mph, in a 70-80 max speed limit.
Who determines that "need? An over reaching Governmemnt? That's exactly what the 2nd Amendment was aimed at.

No, I figure you for one who has little experience/contact with firearms. You are usually the first to offer it up...because it does not infringe upon any of "your" interests.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:
The federal laws are a matter of opinion here. Neither you nor I can change these. I personally believe there should be federal laws regarding the alteration of weapons and the use of weapons in certain crimes and by certain people. I should have explained myself further WHILE AGREEING WITH YOUR POSITION. State laws commonly are written without teeth necessary for proper enforcement. For example. True story. A man convicted of burglary and various felony drug crimes brandished a handgun during an argument at a grocery store. A police officer saw this and intervened. After a brief foot chase the man was in custody. Because of the way the state law was written regarding "persons prohibited" the only charges the DA would consider were misdemeanor with little or no jail time. The ATF came in and charged him with a federal crime and now he is in prison instead of selling drugs and pulling guns on people at grocery stores. Those are the laws I believe are necessary, Just my little opinion.

While I appreciate and respect your opinion, "The Federal laws are a matter of opinion here."...this is just not so. Federal laws are subject to the Constitution.

That has been my underlying point in most of my posts in this thread...Yes I understand there are many things the Federal government does outside the scope of their specific and enumerated powers but, "Neither you nor I can change these."...maybe, maybe not...but I still like to use the Constitution to point out the hypocrisy of any politician, news media, ect that claims respect of the Constitution.

"I pesonally believe there should be federal laws regarding the alteration of weapons and the use of weapons in certain crimes and by certain people."

I'm sure many people agree with you...but that doesn't mean a majority vote can authorize the Congress to pass such laws...that pesky 2nd Amendment and all...But there is a way to reach your goal of federal oversight and that is the amendment process laid out in the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:
The federal laws are a matter of opinion here. Neither you nor I can change these. I personally believe there should be federal laws regarding the alteration of weapons and the use of weapons in certain crimes and by certain people. I should have explained myself further WHILE AGREEING WITH YOUR POSITION. State laws commonly are written without teeth necessary for proper enforcement. For example. True story. A man convicted of burglary and various felony drug crimes brandished a handgun during an argument at a grocery store. A police officer saw this and intervened. After a brief foot chase the man was in custody. Because of the way the state law was written regarding "persons prohibited" the only charges the DA would consider were misdemeanor with little or no jail time. The ATF came in and charged him with a federal crime and now he is in prison instead of selling drugs and pulling guns on people at grocery stores. Those are the laws I believe are necessary, Just my little opinion.

While I appreciate and respect your opinion, "The Federal laws are a matter of opinion here."...this is just not so. Federal laws are subject to the Constitution.

That has been my underlying point in most of my posts in this thread...Yes I understand there are many things the Federal government does outside the scope of their specific and enumerated powers but, "Neither you nor I can change these."...maybe, maybe not...but I still like to use the Constitution to point out the hypocrisy of any politician, news media, ect that claims respect of the Constitution.

"I pesonally believe there should be federal laws regarding the alteration of weapons and the use of weapons in certain crimes and by certain people."

I'm sure many people agree with you...but that doesn't mean a majority vote can authorize the Congress to pass such laws...that pesky 2nd Amendment and all...But there is a way to reach your goal of federal oversight and that is the amendment process laid out in the Constitution.

While I'm no political scholar I do believe the Constitution you so quickly fall back on gave the Legislative branch the ability to draft law. My point is that I support laws created by our federal government to supplement state laws. Face it Renegade our state laws do not always accomplish things. A prime example is the RICO statute. I want limited government just like everyone else but some federal laws are necessary. I believe you misconstrued the statements I made you quoted. I meant that the need for federal firearms laws was my opinion. When I said neither you nor I can change these I meant that the current laws in place cannot be repealed by the likes of you or me. That is a job for our Judicial branch. And we don't need a majority vote for a law that is already in place. This is why I have not posted on the political forum and most likely will not visit it again. It's sometimes like conversing with the family guy donkey.

quote:

Face it Renegade our state laws do not always accomplish things. A prime example is the RICO statute.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by wright35633:
The federal laws are a matter of opinion here. Neither you nor I can change these. I personally believe there should be federal laws regarding the alteration of weapons and the use of weapons in certain crimes and by certain people. I should have explained myself further WHILE AGREEING WITH YOUR POSITION. State laws commonly are written without teeth necessary for proper enforcement. For example. True story. A man convicted of burglary and various felony drug crimes brandished a handgun during an argument at a grocery store. A police officer saw this and intervened. After a brief foot chase the man was in custody. Because of the way the state law was written regarding "persons prohibited" the only charges the DA would consider were misdemeanor with little or no jail time. The ATF came in and charged him with a federal crime and now he is in prison instead of selling drugs and pulling guns on people at grocery stores. Those are the laws I believe are necessary, Just my little opinion.

While I appreciate and respect your opinion, "The Federal laws are a matter of opinion here."...this is just not so. Federal laws are subject to the Constitution.

That has been my underlying point in most of my posts in this thread...Yes I understand there are many things the Federal government does outside the scope of their specific and enumerated powers but, "Neither you nor I can change these."...maybe, maybe not...but I still like to use the Constitution to point out the hypocrisy of any politician, news media, ect that claims respect of the Constitution.

"I pesonally believe there should be federal laws regarding the alteration of weapons and the use of weapons in certain crimes and by certain people."

I'm sure many people agree with you...but that doesn't mean a majority vote can authorize the Congress to pass such laws...that pesky 2nd Amendment and all...But there is a way to reach your goal of federal oversight and that is the amendment process laid out in the Constitution.

While I'm no political scholar I do believe the Constitution you so quickly fall back on gave the Legislative branch the ability to draft law. My point is that I support laws created by our federal government to supplement state laws. Face it Renegade our state laws do not always accomplish things. A prime example is the RICO statute. I want limited government just like everyone else but some federal laws are necessary. I believe you misconstrued the statements I made you quoted. I meant that the need for federal firearms laws was my opinion. When I said neither you nor I can change these I meant that the current laws in place cannot be repealed by the likes of you or me. That is a job for our Judicial branch. And we don't need a majority vote for a law that is already in place. This is why I have not posted on the political forum and most likely will not visit it again. It's sometimes like conversing with the family guy donkey.

Look I meant no offense or was there anything personal in what I said.

So I don't know, am I suppose to accept everything you say to keep from upsetting you?

I hope you continue to return to the political forum...the debate can be silly sometimes and I have certainly been guilty of getting in the muck with others...but I and many others here try to debate in a respectful way...doesn't mean I do it without passion...

With all that said...Constitutionally, nearly everything in your last post is pretty much wrong