Gun control runs into 2nd amendment problems
| irate azure mood | 02/19/18 | | Beady-eyed business firm | 02/19/18 | | irate azure mood | 02/19/18 | | Galvanic navy native | 02/19/18 | | territorial heady jewess | 02/19/18 | | Galvanic navy native | 02/19/18 | | Beady-eyed business firm | 02/19/18 | | Clear home | 02/19/18 | | Arrogant gaping tanning salon | 02/19/18 | | pearl coiffed idiot | 02/19/18 | | Drab mother lay | 02/19/18 | | Submissive set philosopher-king | 02/19/18 | | irate azure mood | 02/19/18 | | Galvanic navy native | 02/19/18 | | laughsome saffron trust fund | 02/19/18 | | irate azure mood | 02/19/18 | | Bossy half-breed | 02/19/18 | | Aqua Pea-brained Principal's Office Twinkling Uncleanness | 02/19/18 | | Stirring degenerate really tough guy | 02/19/18 | | Clear home | 02/19/18 | | Milky Slap-happy Blood Rage | 02/19/18 | | Milky Slap-happy Blood Rage | 02/19/18 | | irate azure mood | 02/19/18 | | Milky Slap-happy Blood Rage | 02/19/18 | | irate azure mood | 02/19/18 | | Milky Slap-happy Blood Rage | 02/19/18 | | irate azure mood | 02/19/18 | | lilac pozpig national security agency | 02/19/18 | | Milky Slap-happy Blood Rage | 02/19/18 | | laughsome saffron trust fund | 02/19/18 | | Milky Slap-happy Blood Rage | 02/19/18 | | very tactful parlor | 02/19/18 | | territorial heady jewess | 02/19/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:42 PM Author: irate azure mood
If the Bill of Rights could be considered a sweetener to incentivize the states to ratify the Constitution in the 1780s, then there is a problem with outlawing semi-automatic weapons. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms was all about empowering the states against an oppressive central government, by giving individuals in the states the power to rise up against a standing army formed by the federal gov't. It wasn't about individuals having a right to guns to defend their personal property from thieves.
So when advocating for gun control, one would be well advised to address the question how can individuals rise up at the state level to fight against federal oppression if the standing army has access to automatic, semi-automatic, grenades, killer drones, etc.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438759) |
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:50 PM Author: laughsome saffron trust fund
when was the last time someone used a 30-round magazine for any of the following:
1. Fighting off the government
2. Self defense
3. Hunting
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438805) |
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:06 PM Author: Milky Slap-happy Blood Rage
Is this a law board? Come on. How about this:
The bill of rights was not intended to be a restriction against what the states could do, only a restriction that applied to the federal government. For instance, in the late 1700's, some states had official "Church of [Virginia]s" that were established by the states, and that did not run afoul of the US Constitution establishment clause (the churches didn't last because they were a bad idea).
When the bill of rights was incorporated to apply to state governments after the 14th amendment, it was done incrementally and unevenly. Some amendments, like the 3rd amendment, were never formally incorporated to be a restriction on state action.
When the 2nd amendment was written, it only forbid the federal government from banning arms. This made sense, as it would be an obvious act of tyranny and overreach for the federal government in DC to take away the privately owned guns in South Carolina. However, the inverse is not true.
The 2nd amendment was not intended, at the time it was written, to be any sort of restriction against state governments from regulating gun ownership. It was assumed that state governments could do as they please on the issue.
Thus, it is a bastardized reading of the 2nd amendment to say that states can't ban whatever firearm they wish. The real argument here is the 14th amendment and the incorporation of the 2nd amendment against states, which if you believe that we are a nation of free peoples expressing our will through our states, it is a insult to the principles of freedom and the American Revolution that Florida can't ban AR-15's.
Conclusion: if the confederacy had won, Florida would be free to ban AR-15's without some distant tyrannical federal government using military force to prevent them from doing so. THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438929) |
|
|