It's real easy, just put a "D" next to their name and the Constitution gets sent to the shredder, to them it's outdated and is no longer applicable in todays American society. And then they can not only ban guns, they will dictate how you will live or die, what you can say or cannot say, where you will live and who you will live with or amongst.
Yeah but hell even Ronald Reagan openly supported the 94 assault weapons ban and stated himself that it doesn't take 10 rounds to kill a deer. It's not always just the Democrats, Reagan is widely considered to be like the Godfather of Republicans and even he was in support of dismissing the 2nd Amendment....
Understood, but if you compare the D's to the R's, gun banning is part and parcel, SOP for the D's. While both sides are power hungry the D's are balls to the walls, when it comes to crushing all of the peoples rights in America.
Well that's sort of what makes me curious. Reagan was like the epitome of a Constitutionalist and basically the gatekeeper of traditional American values. But even he said that... Are we misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment or something? How are New York and California able to just openly defy the Constitution the way they are doing? Their blatant illegal policies were widely known and in place during the last few years when we had Donald Trump and a Republican controlled Congress. If this is as blatantly illegal was we think it is then why isn't our judicial system doing anything about it? I don't even recall hearing any proposals to reduce federal aid to these states as punishment for breaking Constitutional Law during a time when Republicans basically controlled the federal government. I mean hell the federal government at one point threatened to pull funding from Colorado for having the audacity to legalize weed which has nothing to do with the Constitution but they are seemingly just sitting on their hands whistling as 2 states are very openly defying Constitutional Law. Is this actually even illegal or are we missing something?
Because the judicial system does nothing to push back against such abuses, an individual must file a suit to begin the process, commonly backed by a pro-gun organization. The goal is to bring the case to the USSC where a final precedent can be set, however in the past USSC was stacked with judges like Ginsberg, who consider the Constitution to be outdated and no longer relevant in todays times, as such that has had a chilling effect to begin a very expensive lawsuit against such violations of the Constitution. However the makeup of the USSC is changing by Trumps recent appointments and if Ginsberg kicks the bucket, I am quite sure he will push forth another Constitutional judge, versus the rewrite the Constitution from the bench senile idiot like Ginsberg.
Fair enough. It's pretty sad, and frankly nerve wracking, that we as a nation don't have enough Justices on our SUPREME COURT that we can trust to actually enforce Constitutional Law. Thats....troubling.
Nothing in the Constitution says you have a right to own a gun. It only says you have a right to bear arms. That could be a government-issued weapon. And where does the Constitution protect your right to have ammunition? And where does it give you the right to unlimited stocks of ammunition?
And as the united states supreme court has specified and clarified, the second amendment extends to all implements that constitute bearable arms. Arms and ammunition are complimentary goods that go together. One is useless without the other. Such is no different than claiming the first amendment protects a right to free expression, but only so long as one does not express themselves in a public venue where they may be observed by others. Constitutional amendments do not give rights. They merely recognize and protect existing rights.
So, what is a rational limit of ammunition beyond which should be illegal? How many rounds? Is the threshold different for someone protecting their home, a hunter, a competitor?
I agree that those things are indeed occurring; there is no denying that. That still doesn't change that those things are unconstitutional. It doesn't change that SCOTUS is effectively acting as an oligarchy and people aren't standing up to it (many people actually voice support for it, due to their lack of knowledge about what the Constitution actually says). Correct. It's not just the courts turning a blind eye; it's the whole State of NY itself. (I'd even say that all the states themselves are turning a blind eye to the power that they hold over the US Constitution). Because some justices choose to unconstitutionally change the US Constitution instead of ruling based on the literal text. It's cut and dry to them too; they just don't like what it says and use their position of power to alter what it says. I don't want them to either. I want them to abide by the US Constitution. Generally, I want it kept there too. I don't think we do all that well at adhering to it (especially liberals, but righties are guilty of it too at times). Article 1 Section 8 is basically ignored at this point, as is Article 3. Article 4 Section 4 is being ignored. So is Article 5 by liberals (and liberal judges) specifically. Liberals change what Article 6 Paragraph 2 actually says. Much of the Bill of Rights is being ignored (mostly by liberals, especially amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10). Liberals are doing their best to ignore Amendment 12. Liberals change what the 14th Amendment actually says. Etc, etc... I don't agree that that's the case though. See above examples of how the Constitution isn't really being adhered to that much anymore. Correct. Reagan and/or the courts should have shut that down. If neither of them decided to do their jobs (which they didn't), then the States themselves should have shut that down, as they collectively are the owners of the governing document. In the same way that a murderer murders, a thief steals, a rapist rapes, a druggie drives under the influence, etc. etc... Because most people aren't holding him accountable for doing so.
Reagan was senile at that point and was trying to support his crippled friend, James Brady. So I don't give any credence to what he was babbling 6 years after he left office: in 1987, Mario cuomo-in referring to Reagan, said "A FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD FIRST"
what people like you ignore or deliberately refuse to understand is that nothing in the constitution delegates ANY power WhATSOEVER, to the federal government to regulate what guns you can own or use. Pretending that the constitution must state a right for it to exists, is both a sign of terminal ignorance of how our government works and a complete failure to understand the ninth amendment or the concept of a federal government limited to powers specifically granted to it.
The D's have been taken over by zealots of Karl Marx. They want to replace our federated republic with an oligarchy (with them as the ruling class, obviously). That's why they support socialism, fascism and/or communism, brainwashing people into believing that rights are granted by the government rather than existing inherently [especially the right to self defense expressed in the 2nd Amendment], and are brainwashing everyone into believing that "Climate Change" is happening (it's not) due to mankind's "carbon sins" (CO2 is not an issue in any way)...
Correct... Even the best of Presidents have their faults and areas where I disagree with them. For Reagan, the support of such a ban is one thing that I strongly disagree with him on. I still think he's right up towards the very top of the "best President ever" list, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have his faults...
I honestly don't think you understand what the word "violate" means. But ok. SO.. if we're quibbling, why not allow for "reasonable" abortion controls? Or do you imagine that only your pet policies are sacrosanct and unable to be otherwise regulated?
Actually, it does clearly say that. See the 2nd Amendment (as well as the 9th Amendment, concerning the inherent right to life/self defense). Yup, and a gun IS an arm. It could also be a privately purchased weapon. 2nd Amendment, 9th Amendment... Ammunition is necessary to make use of arms such as guns; it is also part of the inherent right to life/self defense. 2nd Amendment, 9th Amendment... See above.
Because what's "reasonable" to some isn't "reasonable" to others. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of this sort of thing, although Democrats are historically well more in favor of enacting Federal Policy than Republicans. But Republicans in general have no real problem supporting "federal" laws that they personally agree with either. Some say that there are no "reasonable" abortion control measures. All or nothing, her body her choice, if a woman decides at month 8 she no longer wants a baby then it's her right to terminate it. Anything proposed to tell her otherwise is a violation of her human rights. Some say there are no "reasonable" gun control measures. I should be able to own a loaded M32 semi automatic grenade launcher and walk around the local mall with it on my back and anything proposed to tell me otherwise is a violation of my Constitutional rights. In regards to both subjects there are folks who believe some sort of line should be drawn at some point along the proverbial ladder. And depending on who you ask, that line will be drawn on different rungs. That's why in my book everybody just needs to mind their own business. Tell the Feds to stay out of it and let the States and the individuals make their own decisions. I'll admit I'm a bit of an extremist in that sort of thing though, I personally don't even feel the States should be dealing with most stuff I think individual people just all need to mind their own business and stop trying to prohibit others from doing things they don't personally like. I am in favor of "banning" or "prohibiting" very few things at all outside of the baseline logical things. I wouldn't be in favor of Louisiana legalizing murder and saying "well if you don't like it move then" or anything. But in most other cases, yeah... Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a dude Don't like prayer in school? Don't pray in school Don't like that Chick Fil A doesn't like gays? Don't eat at Chick Fil A Don't like abortions? Don't have an abortion Don't like guns? Don't buy an AR-15 etc That's my mentality, live and let live. I don't really care what the hell my neighbor does as long as he isn't bothering me with it. There are a whole lot of things in society that I don't personally like but there are very few things in society that I will advocate we ban because I don't like them.
Show me the word "own". The right to bear arms is not automatically the right to own arms. Show me where it specifies that. I don't see anything about owning or buying weapons. I only see the right to possess a weapon. Okay, you only need six bullets for self defense.
Right, and they could be government issued weapons that are loaned for private use. Okay, six bullets.
The 9th amendment has nothing to do with it. And the second amendment is clearly limited for good reason. You only need one or two bullets for defense. But we can be generous and use six bullets as the example.
I loved Reagan. He was a great man. Too bad he was wrong about just about everything. When did the debt explode? Under Reagan and due to his tax policies. That is his legacy.
No they can't. You forgot the last part of the 2nd Amendment where it says "shall not be infringed". Allowing the government to dictate when and to whom they loan out their government issued firearms classifies as infringement. You are telling me when I am allowed to bear arms and who is allowed to do so. You can't prohibit me from bearing arms unless I have specifically done something in order to have my rights revoked (felon or something). It works the other way around, I don't have to first prove to the government my Right to do something, I have to do something wrong first in order for them to revoke my Right to do something.
