Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.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.
in what way will whites supposedly be permanently disenfranchised exactly..???
my question on how you think Whites will react to being permanently disenfranchised
^
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.
Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.
Spin that Marty.
Trump will destroy the cankled cuckquean. Thanks to Obama's incompetence, he may win all 57 states.
Yes.You should have indicated that in your OP.If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.
Again.
I was really kind of hoping for some actual responses... you know, where people think.
why? do you think that would have changed anything?
Trump will destroy the cankled cuckquean. Thanks to Obama's incompetence, he may win all 57 states.
You know....
It is pretty pathetic when you have to laugh at your own lame attempt at a joke
And that isn't going to end well
And that isn't going to end well
Trump has been a success his whole life. He knows how to hire good people and manage it would seem? We are $20T Debt, world laughing stock, credit downgraded, World currency to China, BHO starting riots from FLA to STL to CHI with stamp of approval on things like OWS. It is now "well" now?
Trump has been a success his whole life.
wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...
Yes.You should have indicated that in your OP.If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.
Again.
I was really kind of hoping for some actual responses... you know, where people think.
why? do you think that would have changed anything?
Yes.You should have indicated that in your OP.If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.
Again.
I was really kind of hoping for some actual responses... you know, where people think.
why? do you think that would have changed anything?
i don't. but that's ok.
Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.And when did I say you can't have a 9mm handgun? Can you quote me saying that? Or did you just offer up a silly, stupid little strawman to prop up a failed argument?
Quote me saying you can't have a 9mm pistol.......or admit that your 'argumentum ad adsurdum' was just more ignorant noise, and a hopeless strawman.
Its one or the other. Pick one.
I asked you what about automatic weapons? Light machine guns? Grenades? Missile launchers? All standard, start of the art issue for the infantryman. Grenades are not 'like artillery', as they aren't large bore guns or launchers of missiles.
Says who? You already demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about with your 'grenades are artillery' nonsense. Why then would I accept you citing yourself as having any relevance to this conversation?
And for the 5th time, where does the constitution say that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution in order to be protected?
Show me. Don't tell me.
You can't. The constitution includes no such requirement, no such restriction on rights. You made that up, citing yourself. And you citing yourself is not the constitution. You making up imaginary restrictions on rights is not the constitution.
The 9th amendment? That's the constitution.
And it destroys your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. Rights are limits to government actions. And the constitution draws *no* distinction between enumerated rights and unemuerated rights in terms of their restrictions on government action.
You've imagined it. And your imagination isn't the constitution either.
The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up.
Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.
And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?
These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.
Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.
Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.
The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.
By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.
And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.
The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.
Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?
Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.
A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.
and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.
There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.
And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.
The right doesn't obey the NRA, you're a liar. The founders wrote about tyranny and the right to bear arms, you're an idiot. Carson didn't compare us to Nazi Germany, you're a lying idiot....it isn’t just the virtually unanimous Republican decision to obey the NRA rather than public opinion in issues like the gun show loophole that’s polarizing the debate and driving liberals to distraction. It’s been the steady drift of conservatives towards radical conceptions of the Second Amendment that make any discussion of “compromise” on gun regulation impossible.
...these radical conceptions are becoming especially alarming in view of the widespread conservative conviction that standard-brand liberalism represents some sort of conspiracy to impose tyranny on the American people.
It’s this latter factor that elevates the theory that the Founders designed the Second Amendment to facilitate precisely the same kind of armed revolution that they undertook from an abstract historical argument to something very scary.
When Ben Carson says he’s now convinced armed resistance to “tyranny” is the purpose of the Second Amendment, it’s kind of worth noting that the man believes we are imminently threatened by “tyranny” if Alinskyites like Obama and Hillary Clinton are allowed to serve in high national office?
If that is indeed what the Second Amendment means—and at the very least Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz share Carson’s position—then who gets to decide when it’s time to start shooting cops and members of the armed forces (because that’s what this means, much as right-to-revolution advocates want to keep it at the level of an abstract “government”)?
People who think Obamacare is “slavery?” or that progressive taxation is “looting?” or that we are at a “tipping point” where those people will soon extinguish private property rights? How about people who think America is like Nazi Germany (again, a comparison Ben Carson is constantly inviting) where millions of babies are being slaughtered? Do they get to decide when armed revolution is appropriate or necessary?
I ask these questions because there’s no doubt in my mind that the emotional underpinning of the right-to-revolution understanding of the Second Amendment is to present an ongoing threat to those of us in the other political camp that there’s only so much of this godless liberalism that good righteous people can be expected to tolerate.
The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.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.
By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.
It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.
Gee, you sure can echo the bullshit, always sans evidence.
What you can't grasp is this concept, It it's broke, fix it or throw it out. The Second is broken, too many innocents die due to too many guns in play.
Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up.
Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.
And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?
These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.
Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.
Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.
The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.
By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.
And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.
The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.
Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?
Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.
A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.
and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.
There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.
And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.
A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Says who? The Founders didn't 'envision' an automatic rifle either. Or a semi-automatic pistol. If we go by arms as 'envisioned' by the Founders, we'd be limited to black powder weapons.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.
Save that artillery is a large bore gun or a missle launcher. Says who? Says the dictionary:
1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance
b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
artillery | large guns that are used to shoot over a great distance
So you clearly don't know what you're talking about. A rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade. As a rifle is actually a firearm and a discharger of missiles. A grenade is neither. So why not a grenade?
And who says that artillery isn't 'arms'. Not the US. We include artillery in our definition of 'arms' in the Arms Export Control Act. They're also included in as arms in the Arms Trade Treaty, of which we're a signatory.
So why not artillery too?
and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.
So you believe the 2nd amendment includes automatic weapons, light machine guns and the like. It only took 9 recitations to get you to finally answer the question.
How about rocket launchers? Tanks? Airplanes? These are all categorized as 'arms' per US law.
There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.
How about a bazooka then, or its wire guided equivilant for today?
And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.
Show us where the word 'arms' doesn't include artillery. As you've never quoted any source but yourself.
No. it. Isn't. When the militia mustered, people showed up with their muskets and maybe a pistol, some showed up with knives or swords or even pikes. grenades were the realm of grenadiers and sappers, not your common line infantry.
Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.
And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.
They're standard issue today.
So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?
Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.
All you are trying to do here is make me set a "line" and somehow ruin my views on strict construction. as Wry Catcher has figured out (and if you are slower than Wry Catcher, yeesh) Strict construction is not literal construction. There is room for interpretation,. What there is not room for is making crap up.
I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.
Then answer the question.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.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.
Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.
The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.
LOL, do you expect anyone to believe this ^^^ lie? The party rhetoric of the Big Tent has even been dropped by the Republican Party leadership years ago, do try to keep up.
The great irony is that the gerrymandering efforts of the R's resulted in their gaining majority's in State Legislatures, whose members passed Draconian laws which impacted the rights of women, minorities, seniors, the working poor and the ill, aged and disabled.
Hate and fear, prejudice and bigotry only work for a time, soon The People recognize that such people in power may soon be a threat to them. Of course so do the party leaders, thus voter suppression is their plan today.
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.
Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.
Spin that Marty.
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.
Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".
Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.
Spin that Marty.
One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?
General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.
