rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
Funny how states’ rights is a beloved principle among conservatives unless it is blue states’ rights.
If history is any guide, probably the initial registration would be free. Thereafter, subsequent transfers would be subject to the tax and -- more importantly -- a year-long wait for the transfer to be approved. Noncompliance would be at a level comparable to noncompliance with alcohol Prohibition.Not banned, just heavily restricted. If you own one you will have to register it and pay for a stamp. Otherwise you will be in possession of contraband.
Funny how states’ rights is a beloved principle among conservatives unless it is blue states’ rights.
Just look at I-639 that the VOTERS in Washington state passed. Semiauto = Assault Rifle.
The Constitution grants no rights at all, rights are inalienable.If conservative beliefs have the numbers, the 2A gives individuals possession and owner’s rights. If Liberal beliefs have the numbers, then the 2A grants those rights to a well regulated militia or the government. The wording of the Constitution has not changed, the power structure is what changes.
That's for sure!Maybe if they were given the choice of ruling in favor of the Constitution and "we the people"(who pay their salaries) - or going to Federal prison they would actually do their duty and their job. When they decree that an unalienable right that "shall not be infringed" leaves plenty of room for "limitations" then they're clearly not working for us anymore.
The meaning of the 2nd is clear. Only liberals and those that hate guns muddy it. Haven't you ever noticed that when liberals mention individual or collective rights they have no doubt that in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments the word "people" denotes an individual right, but somehow, only in the 2nd, the same exact word means a collective right of the militia. Anybody that doesn't see them applying their ridiculous interpretation, simply to fit their agenda, is being disingenuous.How could it be any other way? Isn't your own reading just another example of the situation you are complaining about? There is no such thing as TRUE meaning or ORIGINAL INTENT. All written words are subject to the understanding of the reader. Always have been, always will be. Just because you don't like one of the interpretation options, don't think you can rule it out of legitimacy. Your interpretation (sans militia I'm guessing) is no more legitimate than any other. All the BS about Scalia being an originalist doesn't mean a thing. The correct interpretation of the written word is the one that the most people accept at any given time. That is just the way of the world.
Only liberals and those that hate guns muddy it.
It is clear to you and it is clear to me. So why do we disagree about what it means? Because that is what folks do about written words.The Constitution grants no rights at all, rights are inalienable.
That's for sure!
The meaning of the 2nd is clear. Only liberals and those that hate guns muddy it. Haven't you ever noticed that when liberals mention individual or collective rights they have no doubt that in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments the word "people" denotes an individual right, but somehow, only in the 2nd, the same exact word means a collective right of the militia. Anybody that doesn't see them applying their ridiculous interpretation, simply to fit their agenda, is being disingenuous.
Is my Winchester mdl 100 308 a assault rifle? A modern sporting rifle? My Dad gave it to me back around 1968 after returning from Viet Nam. I know the Liberals want to take it away from me. But as the saying goes. "Till death do us Part". There will never be a Liberal born that will take that gun away from me alive.
It is clear to you and it is clear to me. So why do we disagree about what it means? Because that is what folks do about written words.
Heller or no Heller, the authors of the Constitution were thinking something about militias else they would not have mentioned them. Exactly what, I don't know, and neither do you, neither did Scalia, neither does anyone. But ignoring those important words in the 2A is simply wrong and to blithely disregard them makes no sense. One doesn't have to attribute the right to bear arms as a collective right of a militia to understand that the authors felt there was a purpose to INDIVIDUAL gun ownership that had to do with the defense and maintenance of order of the homeland. But no, you don't want any responsibility attached to your rights. Rather selfish, don't you think.
the authors of the Constitution were thinking something about militias else they would not have mentioned them. Exactly what, I don't know, and neither do you, neither did Scalia, neither does anyone.
.being necessary to the security of a free State
Why do people have to agree and make a stand if a right is granted by God? Does God not defend the rights He grants? How is it that man has the power to revoke the rights granted by God, the rights enumerated by Jefferson? Perhaps we should stick to what we can control?Doesn’t really matter to me what SCOTUS decides. My rights in a free republic are inalienable and granted by God, not the government. The problem is, everyone needs to think that way to make a stand. That’s right, all gun owners standing together. Imagine that. If we did that as a collective we wouldn’t even be having these discussions.
I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this but 2A was to insure that the federal gov't could never restrict a state from raising an army from the civilian population. A guarantee that the federal gov't would never be more powerful than the states. To reinforce that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed by congress after the civil war to limit the powers of the fed using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the US.
They're going to sidestep that problem by simply banning all semiautomatic rifles with removable magazines. So what if some Fudd hunting rifles fall under that umbrella? They don't care.They'll have to define "assault weapons" first.
Funny how states’ rights is a beloved principle among conservatives unless it is blue states’ rights.
Why didn't you bold and underline the part about the militia too. It isn’t there by accident.Read the 10th Amendment:
"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."
Now read the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the states do not have the authority to override it. Your 2nd Amendment rights should be available to you in all 50 states just as your 1st and 4th Amendment rights are available to you in all 50 states.