Republicans in Panic?

[Ravi]

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

What do they do that represents the interests of all Americans? Say, in the past two years.

 

[Ravi]

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Please stop lying about what I say.

Why did you run away from my question?

 

[martybegan]

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

You just don't understand it because you don't want to. And the only magical thinking is on your side, that uses basically an oligarchy to get what you want.

lol, you're so stupid that you think those that wrote the constitution didn't make any ambiguous sentences. That's magical thinking.

I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

And taking ambiguity as license to make crap up is what is really stupid.

 

[Iceweasel]

wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...

Only to assholes. But I understand it's hard to see your own asshole. Look in the mirror!

Iceweasel, forever the ladies man. Proves Repubs war on women is not dead.

What does gender have to with it? With liberals it's all about gender, race, sex preference, blah blah blah. I also not a Republican, libs know so much that is wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

What do they do that represents the interests of all Americans? Say, in the past two years.

I didn't say "all Americans", I said Americans. Stop trying to be cute. It isn't working.

To me they are better than Dems when it comes to smaller government, and less government intrusion on our lives, not great, but better.

 

[Ravi]

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

You just don't understand it because you don't want to. And the only magical thinking is on your side, that uses basically an oligarchy to get what you want.

lol, you're so stupid that you think those that wrote the constitution didn't make any ambiguous sentences. That's magical thinking.

I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

And taking ambiguity as license to make crap up is what is really stupid.

No crap has been made up, though. So, you've got nothing. I don't care if your IQ is off the charts, you are still a stupid neanderthal magical thinker.

 

[jillian]

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

not to mention that those asserting "strict construction" as a doctrine, decided that corporations are people with religious character and guns don't require a "well organized militia" to be an actual right.

essentially they pretend everything they don't like isn't in the constitution and everything they want is.

but while we're talking about strict construction, where does it say in the constitution that a corporation has a first amendment religious right?

 

[Ravi]

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

What do they do that represents the interests of all Americans? Say, in the past two years.

I didn't say "all Americans", I said Americans. Stop trying to be cute. It isn't working.

To me they are better than Dems when it comes to smaller government, and less government intrusion on our lives, not great, but better.

I'm not being cute. I'm trying to understand what the fuck you are going on about. So they don't represent all Americans...who the HELL do they represent?

 

[jillian]

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

What do they do that represents the interests of all Americans? Say, in the past two years.

I didn't say "all Americans", I said Americans. Stop trying to be cute. It isn't working.

To me they are better than Dems when it comes to smaller government, and less government intrusion on our lives, not great, but better.

ok. why do you think you represent "americans". i'm an American. and the majority of voting americans voted for our current president twice.

"small government" isn't small when you use it to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional right to dominion over their own bodies or set up a police state to ship immigrants out of the country... or keep people from marrying who they love because of race or gender.

btw, there is nothing "diverse" about the GOP....

 

[Wry Catcher]

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

 

[martybegan]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

You just don't understand it because you don't want to. And the only magical thinking is on your side, that uses basically an oligarchy to get what you want.

lol, you're so stupid that you think those that wrote the constitution didn't make any ambiguous sentences. That's magical thinking.

I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

And taking ambiguity as license to make crap up is what is really stupid.

No crap has been made up, though. So, you've got nothing. I don't care if your IQ is off the charts, you are still a stupid neanderthal magical thinker.

Yes it has, and you just ignoring it, or dismissing me doesn't change it.

Poor poor Wavi.

 

[martybegan]

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

not to mention that those asserting "strict construction" as a doctrine, decided that corporations are people with religious character and guns don't require a "well organized militia" to be an actual right.

essentially they pretend everything they don't like isn't in the constitution and everything they want is.

but while we're talking about strict construction, where does it say in the constitution that a corporation has a first amendment religious right?

Only a closely held corporation, and thus it is about the owner's rights, not the corporation. Hobby Lobby was strictly limited to such small, limited shareholder organizations.

You keep ignoring the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and just hone in on the militia part. I have already explained it to you, you just choose to ignore it.

 

[martybegan]

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

What do they do that represents the interests of all Americans? Say, in the past two years.

I didn't say "all Americans", I said Americans. Stop trying to be cute. It isn't working.

To me they are better than Dems when it comes to smaller government, and less government intrusion on our lives, not great, but better.

I'm not being cute. I'm trying to understand what the fuck you are going on about. So they don't represent all Americans...who the HELL do they represent?

Some Americans.

And technically the party doesn't really represent anyone, that's the job of individual representatives.

 

[martybegan]

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

What do they do that represents the interests of all Americans? Say, in the past two years.

I didn't say "all Americans", I said Americans. Stop trying to be cute. It isn't working.

To me they are better than Dems when it comes to smaller government, and less government intrusion on our lives, not great, but better.

ok. why do you think you represent "americans". i'm an American. and the majority of voting americans voted for our current president twice.

"small government" isn't small when you use it to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional right to dominion over their own bodies or set up a police state to ship immigrants out of the country... or keep people from marrying who they love because of race or gender.

btw, there is nothing "diverse" about the GOP....

Some Americans. and I noticed you used the qualifier "voting Americans".

I don't support bans on abortions, nor bans on gay marriage. What I am against is using the constitution wrongly to prevent people who want those things to do them in the manner proscribed, which is via State Legislators. If Alabama wants to ban abortions and gay marriage, fuck em. What they can't do is punish a person who has an abortion out of state, and they would have to recognize any marriage certificate issued by another state, regardless of gender involved.

As for immigrants, if they came here illegally, they should be sent back when caught or found. legal immigration is fine, illegal immigration is not.

 

[Valerie]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

 

[martybegan]

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

 

[martybegan]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

 

[Valerie]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect their (supposed) right to publicly punish people they don't like.

 

[martybegan]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You favor ruining a person's livelihood over hurt feelings and 15-20 minutes of their time finding another baker.

Now, if all the bakers in the town decided to do it, then the government would have to act, as there is an actual harm there, not hurt feelings.

 

[Skylar]

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

How about full auto? A SAW light machine gun? Maybe a nice 50 calibur?

How about grenades? Rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines?

These are all cutting edge weapons of the standard infantry.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

The 9th and 14th amendment contradict that assumption. As you're using the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. It isn't one. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the lack of enumeration in the constitution doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. As the 9th amendment make ludicrously clear.

Just as the Federalist Papers make it clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the constitution. And to overturn laws that violate it. With the 14th amendment extending this power to the States.

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Rights aren't powers. Nor vice versa. I have no problem with a government recognizing rights. As these are restrictions on government power.