Biden is creating a new White House office focused on gun violence prevention

I'm only concered with the US government's power in this thread.

But can we agree that Congress doesn't have plenary power but only has the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution?

 

Yes, I'm well aware that any law or regulation on guns is opposed by those who don't give a rusty crap about the gun death rate in America.

If we have a legitimate agency addressing gun violence in America, it's hopeful we could get better info on what sort of changes would be helpful.

 

see that's just false. the anti gun left loves to claim that if we don't support their schemes to harass honest people, we don't support stopping gun violence when in reality, the left's preoccupation with impotent crime control measures that are nothing more than anti gun schemes, is what harms public safety.

 

The 2nd amendment, like the 1st, 4t, 5th, etc, applies to all level of government, so....

 

Still selling those dead kids, eh?

 

Given current jurisprodence...
What "public safety limits" do you believe are allowed under the 2nd Amendment, and why?

 

it's about all they have because they do not have
1) the obvious words of the constitution
2) the obvious intent of the founders
3) the current and dominant case law concerning the constitution
4) the facts concerning how criminals operate

 

Lock up the violent offenders. That'll cause a decrease in gun deaths.

 

That's why murder, assault and wreckless endangerment are crimes.

 

No, its not. IT has a clear definition.

The metaphor you use if flawed. Someone running describes a physical motion with set parameters. A jog likewise, a walk same.
What you mean to say is that someone might run quite fast, and another quite slow at a pace the former would jog at.
This means the former has more physical prowess, not that one cannot tell the difference between someone actually running vs jogging. The stride lengthens, the arms move differently, respiration increases, heartrate increases, even how you place your feet changes.
This only tells me you have an incredibly superficial understanding of a great many things.

Is it preventing you from keeping or bearing an arm outside of you being literally seized of your rights under the 4th amendment? = infringement = verboten.

 

And again: A law being passed doesn't make it constitutional.

 

Scotus doesn't get to just declare things friend. Do we need to have a remedial lesson on how it works?

And?

 

agree, often depends on the SC judges

 

The 2a says what it says dude. Nothing corrupt about pointing that out. Calm down.

You want registration but haven't examined a nation that actually tried it out? Has data? STopped its program for a reason?
Do you think I asked you that question bout Canadian registration effectiveness solving any cases without already knowing the answer?
Without knowing you could google it and immediately be able to relate the answer?

 

See 14th amendment

 

No, it depends on the text.

The text of the 2a is crystal clear.

Scotus and judicial review are a prestige thing. If people accept the decision, then they have the power. If they don't, they don't. See Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears "Mr. Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.".

 

We see the anti-gun left as more than happy to ignore USSC precedent with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
if the trend of ignoring decisions you do not does not reverse itself, court decisions will mean nothing, and the courts may as well not exist.
This way lies madness.

 

It's impossible for a sentence of less than 30 words to be crystal clear. It doesn't even make grammatical sense! That sentence would be given an F in a test

 

well I think even the anti gun left understands what the clear intent was-and that is why it spends so much time trying to dishonestly re-interpret it. and when you add in the tenth amendment, the Ninth amendment and the fact that Article One Section Eight contains nothing about gun control, it is crystal clear the founders thought only the states had this power. And of course, that power was extremely narrowed with the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by the several states

 

we both know that is not true, different judges can interpret the text differently

so is the first, yet they can have limitations as does the 2nd, such as banning ex-felons that have paid their debt to society being banned from owning guns or voting

 

you seem to not understand how the SC works, if what you said was true, all the judges would always agree, there are gray areas

 

Court should've left abortion alone. It was foolish to roll Roe back. Viability was a fine standard, as good a play at Solomon as they've ever achieved on a contentious issue regarding implied rights.

 

I didn't say they always agreed. You posed why scotus not declare every bad law uncon.
Why? Because that's not how they function. Cases have to be brought and they have to pass the massive amount of procedural hurdles to even BE heard on the merits.

Go back to your post and try again friend.

 

The emphasis is mine. The emphasized sentence is less than 30 words and crystal clear. Also wildly incorrect.

The sentence does make grammatical sense, see discussion in DC v Heller with grammar text citations from a contemporaneous time period.

 

We both know the sentence is quite clear, which is why we're not discussing the text because its hard on your argument. My word, a person with an agenda might disagree with a clear sentence? NO WAY MAN!!!! I'm SHOCKED

These are unconstitutional laws friend.