Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[The Rabbi]

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

No, Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce. That's the State. But it can regulate interstate commerce. And this includes companies like S&W, Colt and other arms manufacturers. If they wish to just sell in one state then they can ignore the Interstate laws and policies. And they won't be able to export to other countries. So watch yourself and pary that the NRA controls congress. It just might change in the Senate this time around. And seats in the House are up for grabs once again. You may wake up after Nov 1 and find that the entire federal government is either blue or purple with blue tint to it. So be careful and actually make cases instead of blanket statements.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce. That's the State. But it can regulate interstate commerce. And this includes companies like S&W, Colt and other arms manufacturers.

That was true when the Constitution was first ratified.

But when the BOR was ratified a few years later, the 2nd amendment removed Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce in guns and other such weapons. Since then, the "Commerce clause" no longer applied to guns.

This is regularly violated by various big-govt pushers who don't think people should have the right to own and carry guns.

But violating the Constitution regularly, doesn't make it legal.

 

[Samson]

Above I gave FBI sources murder rates in the USA, with a population of 300,000,000.

A. Of the countries you mentioned, Japan has the population closest to the USA at about 127 million. Not even 50%. Ethnically, they are homogeneous.
B. All have histories of incredible violence toward their neighbors, except for Aussies and Canadians.
C. Aussies and Canadians live in countries where there are very few people per land area.

Concluding that only the difference between the USA and another nation's gun laws is the ONLY reason that 8,000 gunshot inflicted murders of 300,000,000 mostly armed citizens is narrow-minded.

And I'm getting a little tired of watching preschoolers being wheeled out in body bags so you can compensate for your tiny dick.

Typically I ignore a poster once they reveal they're probably in Junior High, as well as sanctimonious.

 

[Centinel]

No, Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce. That's the State. But it can regulate interstate commerce. And this includes companies like S&W, Colt and other arms manufacturers.

Congress was not granted the power to regulate companies like S&W, Colt, etc. Congress was granted the power to regulate commerce, i.e. buying and selling, among the several states. It was not granted the power to regulate commerce within a state nor to ban possession of particular firearms. Only commerce (buying and selling) among the states may be regulated.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.

I KNOW precisely what the final clause of Article I, Section 8 says within its constitutional context. YOU are the one distorting the matter. Its meaning is EMPHASIZED below, made redundant by your ignorance, and this time pay attention to the context of the BOLD portion that says FOREGOING POWERS, dipstick, which would be the preceding 17 clauses, the other enumerated powers of Congress along with;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

Regarding the commerce clause, you wrote this in your former response to me, IDIOT;

Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Given your first sentence deals with INTRASTATE commerce, but I made no mention of that (commerce within the borders of a given State), hence that response to your irrational reply. Regarding your second sentence, WTF does that have to do with what I had posted to that point, IDIOT? And read up on when a commodity or goods become interstate commerce...see Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

No, Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce. That's the State. But it can regulate interstate commerce. And this includes companies like S&W, Colt and other arms manufacturers. If they wish to just sell in one state then they can ignore the Interstate laws and policies. And they won't be able to export to other countries. So watch yourself and pary that the NRA controls congress. It just might change in the Senate this time around. And seats in the House are up for grabs once again. You may wake up after Nov 1 and find that the entire federal government is either blue or purple with blue tint to it. So be careful and actually make cases instead of blanket statements.

What the FUCK are you going on about? You are so far behind the curve it is laughable. Catch up, and READ THE FUCKING POSTS BEFORE YOU PUT FINGERS TO KEYBOARD!

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.

I KNOW precisely what the final clause of Article I, Section 8 says within its constitutional context. YOU are the one distorting the matter. Its meaning is EMPHASIZED below, made redundant by your ignorance, and this time pay attention to the context of the BOLD portion that says FOREGOING POWERS, dipstick, which would be the preceding 17 clauses, the other enumerated powers of Congress along with;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

Regarding the commerce clause, you wrote this in your former response to me, IDIOT;

Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Given your first sentence deals with INTRASTATE commerce, but I made no mention of that (commerce within the borders of a given State), hence that response to your irrational reply. Regarding your second sentence, WTF does that have to do with what I had posted to that point, IDIOT? And read up on when a commodity or goods become interstate commerce...see Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.

 

[Centinel]

So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.

Agreed. Remington should be able to manufacture a firearm in its Kentucky facility and ship it via private carrier to a customer in Kentucky. Congress has no power to be involved in such a transaction, since the sale is INTRAstate

 

[The Rabbi]

So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.

Agreed. Remington should be able to manufacture a firearm in its Kentucky facility and ship it via private carrier to a customer in Kentucky. Congress has no power to be involved in such a transaction, since the sale is INTRAstate

Unfortunately the law doesnt work like that. See Wickard v Fillburn.

 

[Centinel]

Unfortunately the law doesnt work like that. See Wickard v Fillburn.

Wickard v. Filburn would have been a correct ruling if the commerce clause read, "Regulate any activity that might have some affect on commerce among the several states." But that's not what the constitution says. It says "regulate commerce among the several states." Growing corn to consume on one's farm is not commerce among the several states, nor is selling a firearm to a person in the same state.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unfortunately the law doesnt work like that. See Wickard v Fillburn.

Wickard v. Filburn would have been a correct ruling if the commerce clause read, "Regulate any activity that might have some affect on commerce among the several states." But that's not what the constitution says. It says "regulate commerce among the several states." Growing corn to consume on one's farm is not commerce among the several states, nor is selling a firearm to a person in the same state.

I agree with you and you can scream that from today to next week. But the Supreme Court precedent is there and has never been overturned.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;
At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;
That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.

I KNOW precisely what the final clause of Article I, Section 8 says within its constitutional context. YOU are the one distorting the matter. Its meaning is EMPHASIZED below, made redundant by your ignorance, and this time pay attention to the context of the BOLD portion that says FOREGOING POWERS, dipstick, which would be the preceding 17 clauses, the other enumerated powers of Congress along with;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

Regarding the commerce clause, you wrote this in your former response to me, IDIOT;

Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Given your first sentence deals with INTRASTATE commerce, but I made no mention of that (commerce within the borders of a given State), hence that response to your irrational reply. Regarding your second sentence, WTF does that have to do with what I had posted to that point, IDIOT? And read up on when a commodity or goods become interstate commerce...see Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.

Rabbi, you're a gold plated IDIOT!
I NEVER represented that the necessary and proper clause had any other powers that it had when the Constitution was ratified. But you, on the other hand, never wanted to say what that clause actually meant. Now suddenly, YOU ARE THE ONE AGREEING WITH ME AFTER I HAD TO POST THE CLAUSE VERBATIM TO YOU TWO FREAKIN' TIMES! It finally took the second time.

If what you say is true, and Carter v. Carter Coal Co. doesn't mean what I think it means, FIRST tell me what YOU think I think it means and SECOND what its relevance is to our discussion. That's not a trick question at all if you've actually read the case in the 11 minutes between my post mentioning it and your response and understood it in the context of our "talks". Will you respond to this or go into your usual dance to shift the narrative away from your perfidy?

 

[The Rabbi]

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.

I KNOW precisely what the final clause of Article I, Section 8 says within its constitutional context. YOU are the one distorting the matter. Its meaning is EMPHASIZED below, made redundant by your ignorance, and this time pay attention to the context of the BOLD portion that says FOREGOING POWERS, dipstick, which would be the preceding 17 clauses, the other enumerated powers of Congress along with;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

Regarding the commerce clause, you wrote this in your former response to me, IDIOT;

Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Given your first sentence deals with INTRASTATE commerce, but I made no mention of that (commerce within the borders of a given State), hence that response to your irrational reply. Regarding your second sentence, WTF does that have to do with what I had posted to that point, IDIOT? And read up on when a commodity or goods become interstate commerce...see Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.

Rabbi, you're a gold plated IDIOT!
I NEVER represented that the necessary and proper clause had any other powers that it had when the Constitution was ratified. But you, on the other hand, never wanted to say what that clause actually meant. Now suddenly, YOU ARE THE ONE AGREEING WITH ME AFTER I HAD TO POST THE CLAUSE VERBATIM TO YOU TWO FREAKIN' TIMES! It finally took the second time.

If what you say is true, and Carter v. Carter Coal Co. doesn't mean what I think it means, FIRST tell me what YOU think I think it means and SECOND what its relevance is to our discussion. That's not a trick question at all if you've actually read the case in the 11 minutes between my post mentioning it and your response and understood it in the context of our "talks". Will you respond to this or go into your usual dance to shift the narrative away from your perfidy?

You're obviously insane.

 

[Centinel]

I agree with you and you can scream that from today to next week. But the Supreme Court precedent is there and has never been overturned.

Oh, I agree. The federal government does what it wishes regardless of what the constitution says. The federal government has declared itself to the the judge of the scope of its powers. I'm just pointing out what the constitution actually declares to be the law.

 

[MaryL]

Let's get specific about gun control? That is code for "lets don't do anything" about firearm abuse... The Second amendment was written at a time of flintlocks and muzzle loading guns, and when a militia could address an invading army of the British regulars. But, now, that is a little outdated. We are dealing with human nature now and technology, guns have advanced since 1776. Human nature, not so much. People abuse Guns, drugs, cars and each other. Perhaps it is easier to regulate guns than human nature. Or cars, or drugs, or anything else.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce. That's the State. But it can regulate interstate commerce. And this includes companies like S&W, Colt and other arms manufacturers.

That was true when the Constitution was first ratified.

But when the BOR was ratified a few years later, the 2nd amendment removed Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce in guns and other such weapons. Since then, the "Commerce clause" no longer applied to guns.

This is regularly violated by various big-govt pushers who don't think people should have the right to own and carry guns.

But violating the Constitution regularly, doesn't make it legal.

Care to enlighten the rest of us where in the Amendments this is covered? I just looked at all of them and there isn't a hint of what you claim.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;
At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;
That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Rabbi, you really should read the Constitution some day. At Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of our Constitution, one can find this as the last clause of the enumerated powers of Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

That is a far, far cry from your erroneous interpretation.

Regarding your rant on the commerce clause, who even mentioned INTRASTATE commerce? Not I! You do know the difference between intrastate and interstate, right????

You are an idiot. Like thats news. Read the clause. IT is not carte blanche for anything. It is there to facilitate ONLY those powers specifically enumerated elsewhere.
Do you understand what "intrastate" means? Yes or no.

I KNOW precisely what the final clause of Article I, Section 8 says within its constitutional context. YOU are the one distorting the matter. Its meaning is EMPHASIZED below, made redundant by your ignorance, and this time pay attention to the context of the BOLD portion that says FOREGOING POWERS, dipstick, which would be the preceding 17 clauses, the other enumerated powers of Congress along with;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [Emphasis Added]

Regarding the commerce clause, you wrote this in your former response to me, IDIOT;

Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

Given your first sentence deals with INTRASTATE commerce, but I made no mention of that (commerce within the borders of a given State), hence that response to your irrational reply. Regarding your second sentence, WTF does that have to do with what I had posted to that point, IDIOT? And read up on when a commodity or goods become interstate commerce...see Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

So you agree that the Necessary and Proper clause confers no new power to the federal government. Good.
Your case cite does not mean what you think it means.
Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns. Every interstate transaction to a private individual must be subject to a background check, with certain small exceptions.
SO what the libs want is to extend that requirement to intrastate transactions, since interstate transactions are already covered. That is beyond the power of the federal government.

Hate to bust your bubble but if the gun manufacturer were to keep it in the state it was produced in, the Feds would nothing to say about it. But to move that sale to another state, you just entered into Interstate Commerce and the Feds do control that. Of course, it's within reason. And Reason is what this whole thing is about.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Let's get specific about gun control? That is code for "lets don't do anything" about firearm abuse... The Second amendment was written at a time of flintlocks and muzzle loading guns, and when a militia could address an invading army of the British regulars. But, now, that is a little outdated. We are dealing with human nature now and technology, guns have advanced since 1776. Human nature, not so much. People abuse Guns, drugs, cars and each other. Perhaps it is easier to regulate guns than human nature. Or cars, or drugs, or anything else.

None of which matters at all to what the 2nd amendment means and does.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Care to enlighten the rest of us where in the Amendments this is covered?

(patiently)

In the 2nd.