Even After Latest Attack, Liberals Refuse to Support Vehicle Control

[Synthaholic]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

Constitution and NINTH AMENDMENT.


.

The Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.

LINK?


.

Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95.

In support of his interpretation of the Ninth, Goldberg quoted from Madison's speech in the House of Representatives as well as from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted, and, on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.

 

[Synthaholic]

And bullets are not arms. They are ammunition. Neither are grenades. They are explosives.

Really? Are you sure about that Synthy?!?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Why did you cut off the first part of my post - the question I asked you?

I'll ask again: if that's what they meant, why didn't they just make that the entirety of the 2nd: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

???

Why include the part about being regulated?

Now run away again, you little bitch.

 

[P@triot]

[Then why didn't they just make that the 2nd, in it's entirety? They didn't. They talked about it being regulated.

Oh my God....you ignorant little dropout. They didn't (and I quote) "talk about it being regulated" (you speak like a third grader ).

One of the most admirable and brilliant things about our founders is that they believed the world deserved an explanation for everything they did so it was understood and understood in the proper context. And that is why they gave a reason for the 2nd Amendent.

The Prefatory Clause ("a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state") is the reason for the amendment. It is the why. The Operative Clause ("the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") is the what.

Other than context for history - the why is largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the founders put it in to prevent tyranny, for hunting, or because they wanted to be gangstas. The fact is - they put it in and the what is that we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

I've literally had to teach you everything about government and the U.S. Constitution. I'm truly stunned by the extraordinary level of your ignorance.

 

[Contumacious]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

Constitution and NINTH AMENDMENT.


.

The Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.

LINK?


.

Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95.

In support of his interpretation of the Ninth, Goldberg quoted from Madison's speech in the House of Representatives as well as from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted, and, on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.

OK ?

Justice Goldberg is 100% correct.

It was originally understood that the BOR as originally adopted did not apply to the states. But that the BOR was incorporated via the 14A.

But Constitutional scholar Bennett B. Patterson has demonstrated that the 9A applies to the states.



The Forgotten Ninth Amendment. A Call for Legislative and Judicial Recognition of Rights under Social Conditions of Today. Introduction by Roscoe Pound.

.

 

[P@triot]

And bullets are not arms. They are ammunition. Neither are grenades. They are explosives.

Really? Are you sure about that Synthy?!?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Why did you cut off the first part of my post - the question I asked you?

I'll ask again: if that's what they meant, why didn't they just make that the entirety of the 2nd: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

???

Why include the part about being regulated?

Now run away again, you little bitch.

I broke it down to not only to expose your stupidity but also to simplify it for your very simple and very limited pea-brain. I addressed that in my post after the one above. Now go read it and feel the shame of your stupidity.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not just muskets genius. Arms include guns, cannons, bullets, RPG's, grenades, and a lot more. Just ask an arms dealer, junior. Any other dumb questions you'd like me to answer for you?

Then why didn't they just make that the 2nd, in it's entirety?

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

They didn't. They talked about it being regulated.

And bullets are not arms. They are ammunition. Neither are grenades. They are explosives.

Don't you know anything?

DINGLE BERRY

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME --THE 2A CONFERS NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY - NONE


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Alexander Hamilton

One man's opinion. Still waiting to hear why they included the part about militias and regulation.

You'll probably deflect again and start talking about Federalist papers and such. The problem is, they didn't make it into the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not just muskets genius. Arms include guns, cannons, bullets, RPG's, grenades, and a lot more. Just ask an arms dealer, junior. Any other dumb questions you'd like me to answer for you?

Then why didn't they just make that the 2nd, in it's entirety?

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

They didn't. They talked about it being regulated.

And bullets are not arms. They are ammunition. Neither are grenades. They are explosives.

Don't you know anything?

DINGLE BERRY

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME --THE 2A CONFERS NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY - NONE


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Alexander Hamilton

One man's opinion. Still waiting to hear why they included the part about militias and regulation.

You'll probably deflect again and start talking about Federalist papers and such. The problem is, they didn't make it into the Constitution.

Of course the federalist made it into the Constitution whenever intent is an issue.


But one step at the time.


I am stating that FEDGOV has NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS - the 14A is irrelevant as far as fedgov is concerned.


So how is the text that you quoted supporting your argument that the 2A provides regulatory authority.

 

[Synthaholic]

You guys are giving me a headache. I've argued with you, Contumacious, plenty of times before on this subject and it's obvious we're not going to change each other's views. As for P@triot, you think cops have no need for a gun, so I'm wasting my time even trying to have a discussion with you.

It's Saturday night. I'm gonna have a beer.

 

[P@triot]

Posts #215, #219, and #223 literally comprises the most comprehensive beat down in the world history of arguments, debates, discussions, disagreements, etc. If it were me, I would be far too ashamed to ever show my face on USMB again. Of course, Synthy won't let her deep (and well deserved shame) stop her from her propaganda and ideology.

I am so embarrassed for you Synthy. These posts really illustrate the profound depths of your ignorance.

 

[P@triot]

You guys are giving me a headache. I've argued with you, Contumacious, plenty of times before on this subject and it's obvious we're not going to change each other's views. As for P@triot, you think cops have no need for a gun, so I'm wasting my time even trying to have a discussion with you.

It's Saturday night. I'm gonna have a beer.

 

[P@triot]

Still waiting to hear why they included the part about militias and regulation.

Yeah....I already covered that above, junior. In post #223.

 

[Contumacious]

You guys are giving me a headache. I've argued with you, Contumacious, plenty of times before on this subject and it's obvious we're not going to change each other's views. As for P@triot, you think cops have no need for a gun, so I'm wasting my time even trying to have a discussion with you.

It's Saturday night. I'm gonna have a beer.

It is not one man's opinion.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers stated that, as shown, the 2A provides NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

It sounds like your mind is enslaved, or that you are an elitist and a racist who believes that the Historical evidence should be ignored in order to prevent the Negroes , Hispanics and other minorities from carrying firearms.


.

 

[P@triot]

You guys are giving me a headache.

I figured as much. Facts, data, and information tends to give people like you a headache. You're more suited for simpler tasks such as manning the gas pump and mopping the floors.

 

[Agit8r]

We already have vehicle control. You have to be licensed and insured. Car has to be licensed. Police see your car driving, and they run your plates.

 

[P@triot]

We already have vehicle control. You have to be licensed and insured. Car has to be licensed. Police see your car driving, and they run your plates.

And how did that work out for the thousands of people killed every year in auto accidents and the 84 murdered in France?

It's very clear liberals don't give a damn about human life. All they care about is control. They have some with automobiles, they would desperately like the same with firearms.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

I feel like you're saying you only want criminals to have bullets, because common sense dictates that criminals don't care about the law.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The government can NOT regulate abortion, guns, bazookas, and/or vehicles.

Of course they can. Perfectly Constitutional.

No it isn't, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

As Bripat said. As recently revealed, and blatantly obvious through the entirety of the current administration, the Supreme Court doesn't actually care about interpreting the constitution, only about advancing their own political agendas. If they cared about the constitution, they wouldn't have let Obama violate it 64 times.

That is correct .

Four fascist liberal "justices" who dissented in Heller concluded that the right to bear arms is a "NEW RIGHT"

Fascist "justice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently stated that she is ready to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens United.


.

Scalia stated in Heller that firearms can be regulated.

So sorry that chaps your butt.

Does Scalia somehow have the uncanny ability to be right 100% of the time? No, he's human, like the other justices. Even as great as he was, he can't be right all of the time, and certainly doesn't speak for every Conservative or Republican.

 

[bripat9643]

The government can NOT regulate abortion, guns, bazookas, and/or vehicles.

Of course they can. Perfectly Constitutional.

No it isn't, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

Synthia is dealing with both some illiteracy issues and some gender confusion issues. You'll have to forgive it for speaking from a place of astounding ignorance.

Synthia has had me on ignore for several years because it is too much of a coward to debate me in the open.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You guys are giving me a headache. I've argued with you, Contumacious, plenty of times before on this subject and it's obvious we're not going to change each other's views. As for P@triot, you think cops have no need for a gun, so I'm wasting my time even trying to have a discussion with you.

It's Saturday night. I'm gonna have a beer.

Hardly his fault you don't understand plain English, he's been pretty clear and concise.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The government can NOT regulate abortion, guns, bazookas, and/or vehicles.

Of course they can. Perfectly Constitutional.

No it isn't, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

As Bripat said. As recently revealed, and blatantly obvious through the entirety of the current administration, the Supreme Court doesn't actually care about interpreting the constitution, only about advancing their own political agendas. If they cared about the constitution, they wouldn't have let Obama violate it 64 times.

I can see why liberals here get so frustrated with you - you're literally a billion times more educated than these high school dropouts and societal parasites...

This is the first time I've ever seen that member. He/she only joined in May.

I would love to know where she gets this 64 times.

Is that like a Joe McCarthy thing? "There are 64 Communists in the Congress...."

Oh, I forgot Liberals actually need a rundown of each violation. I'm surprised you actually challenged me on this.

• Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
• In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
• Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law. Article II Section 3
• Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined. – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
• Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2
• Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment.
• Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4
• Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3
• Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
• Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress, and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath.
• Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2
• Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.
• 23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment
• Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3
• 2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.
• Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
• Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t
  
  errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8 Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
• Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
• Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3
• Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
• Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
• Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
• Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
• Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment
• Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.
• Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so.
• NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
• Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything
• Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
• Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
• Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment
• DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
• Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1
• Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated
• Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
• Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment
• Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)
• Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.
• ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.
• Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment
• Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers
• Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare
• Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.
• Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)
• The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.
• Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.
• Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
• Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.
• Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4.
• With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.
• Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.
• The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
• Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.
• Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
• Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
• Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
• Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
• Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3
• Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.
• Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
• Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
• Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
• Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
• In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

Satisfied? A list of every known Constitutional violation by Obama. You'd have already been keeping track if you actually cared about the Constitution and the rights it protects, but you're a Liberal, so I keep my expectations low.