One of them was that the new federal government was never given any power to interfere with private citizens in most areas of life, Keeping arms being one of them
You made a claim about the necessary and proper clause working alone. I showed you evidence that was false, you maintain the claim. Provide proof per the rules or cease. Additionally: You haven't proven it in this thread, or any of the other threads on the same topic you spam the forum with. See Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Bruen, Cruickshank, and the citations to various linguistic authorities contained in the holdings of those cases.
I get that often when I discuss religion. And your colleagues already made it clear that you guys are talking about religious dogma. So I'll lay off your religious beliefs and stick to the topic about the 2nd A as described in the OP.
1) you made the claim that necessary and proper worked on its own. You caselaw on it clearly holds the opposite. Argue with the caselaw, not with me. And provide proof for your claim or withdraw it. Per forum rules. 2) Further: You have not cited a power that it would be necessary and proper to make a gun control law over. The 2nd amendment is not a grant of federal power, and there is no such grant in Art 1 Sec 8.
speaking of religion-for those gun banners who actually believe disarming honest people stops crime-that is a faith based assumption that has no basis in fact. The facts are this-the founders essentially created a federal government that was mainly designed to govern the states-while preserving much of their power and that new government was not generally intended to have any control over what private citizens, acting in a private capacity, within their own sovereign states did.
I did no such thing. I made the claim about the necessary and proper clause working with gun legislation. You're not paying attention. Which is fine because it's not the topic of this thread.
You did indeed make the claim. Cited here Citations end. Gun legislation is not a power granted to the legislature in the Constitution. Cite otherwise.
Nah there's a bunch of us dude. Check out Imperium of Man on FB. Plenty of dank memes. Check out Darktide yet?
Yeah it just released for PC on the 30th. Still early days yet, but the art direction is impeccable and the gameplay loop is fun.
[/QUOTE] The constitution explicitly SAYS "The Congress shall have Power..." What nonsense! Oh! I forgot this is a matter of religious FAITH to you. No wonder.... You can now stop wasting my time...
Again? You need to do something about that memory of yours. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-bear-arms.586083/page-44#post-1073881226 Do you need a link of where you can buy Post-It Notes?
what was the other power referenced in section 18. Complete fail yet again on your part. where was congress empowered to have jurisdiction over private citizens acting in their private capacities
he seems to think he understands the constitution better than I do. He doesnt understand that the necessary and proper clause doesn't create powers in areas where congress never had any power to star with-such as powers over private citizens acting in a private capacity
Understand it or not, it's quite clear he's unwilling to have an honest discussion about it. He knows virtually everything he posts is false.
According to 1791 times in America keep arms meant to use arms not in war and bear meant to use arms in war. Link to introduce you to the term bear arms:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...43ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html
Your "source" - an opinion piece - starts with an absolute falsehood: For most of its history, the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia. This is fairly clear from the text, which says: “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.” You base your nonsensical, unsupportable, position on lies.