Second Amendment Rights

[Centinel]

NOT SO BLOODY FAST! Let's start with the post office example. Where is the power to pass legislation to prosecute criminals involved in mail fraud within Article I, § 8? I don't see it explicitly written in the enumeration, so how did the Congress find the power to enact such, the scofflaws? In your own word please.

Actually, I don't at all see how a law to prosecute mail fraud is necessary and proper to carry into execution the specific enumerated power to establish post offices and roads. Now, a law to prosecute those who interfere with (steal mail, for example) the operation of post offices and roads, sure, since without such laws post offices and post roads could not operate. But not mail fraud. That doesn't interfere with the operation of the post offices and roads. That's just fraud, which most states already consider a crime.

Now it seems you're hanging your hat on the idea that gun control laws are necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specific enumerated powers. Which one, exactly?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

NOT SO BLOODY FAST! Let's start with the post office example. Where is the power to pass legislation to prosecute criminals involved in mail fraud within Article I, § 8? I don't see it explicitly written in the enumeration, so how did the Congress find the power to enact such, the scofflaws? In your own word please.

Actually, I don't at all see how a law to prosecute mail fraud is necessary and proper to carry into execution the specific enumerated power to establish post offices and roads. Now, a law to prosecute those who interfere with (steal mail, for example) the operation of post offices and roads, sure, since without such laws post offices and post roads could not operate. But not mail fraud. That doesn't interfere with the operation of the post offices and roads. That's just fraud, which most states already consider a crime.

Now it seems you're hanging your hat on the idea that gun control laws are necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specific enumerated powers. Which one, exactly?

Mail fraud is a Federal crime and is prosecuted as such. FYI, the US Postal Inspection Service is the Federal law enforcement and security branch of the US Postal Service, bucko! They would be the primary enforcement arm of crimes involving fraud, theft and other criminal activity involving the US Postal Service, so stop dancing and trying to sharp shoot to avoid giving an honest response.

So here is the question again, EXPANDED VERSION:
Where is the power to pass legislation to prosecute criminals involved in mail fraud, mail theft, foreign lottery fraud, identity theft, mailbox vandalism, ad nauseam within Article I, § 8? I don't see it explicitly written in the enumeration, so how did the Congress find the power to enact such. RESPOND TO THE POINT WITHOUT THE DODGING AND DANCING!

 

[Centinel]

Mail fraud is a Federal crime and is prosecuted as such. FYI, the US Postal Inspection Service is the Federal law enforcement and security branch of the US Postal Service, bucko! They would be the primary enforcement arm of crimes involving fraud, theft and other criminal activity involving the US Postal Service, so stop dancing and trying to sharp shoot to avoid giving an honest response.

So here is the question again, EXPANDED VERSION:
Where is the power to pass legislation to prosecute criminals involved in mail fraud, mail theft, foreign lottery fraud, identity theft, mailbox vandalism, ad nauseam within Article I, § 8? I don't see it explicitly written in the enumeration, so how did the Congress find the power to enact such. RESPOND TO THE POINT WITHOUT THE DODGING AND DANCING!

Just because you don't like my answer, asking me the same question again isn't going to change anything.

Two of those laws you listed, laws against mailbox vandalism and mail theft, could certainly be considered necessary and proper to carry into execution the specific enumerated power to establish post offices and post roads. For if one's mailbox is damaged or one's mail is stolen, it interferes with that specific enumerated power.

However, laws against mail fraud (or simply, fraud), foreign lottery fraud, identity theft, and ad nauseum don't seem to be laws that are necessary and proper to carry into execution any of congress' specifically enumerated powers. So, constitutionally, there doesn't seem to be any justification for such laws.

And getting back to gun control, it seems you're hanging your hat on the idea that gun control laws are necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specific enumerated powers. Which one, exactly?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Mail fraud is a Federal crime and is prosecuted as such. FYI, the US Postal Inspection Service is the Federal law enforcement and security branch of the US Postal Service, bucko! They would be the primary enforcement arm of crimes involving fraud, theft and other criminal activity involving the US Postal Service, so stop dancing and trying to sharp shoot to avoid giving an honest response.

So here is the question again, EXPANDED VERSION:
Where is the power to pass legislation to prosecute criminals involved in mail fraud, mail theft, foreign lottery fraud, identity theft, mailbox vandalism, ad nauseam within Article I, § 8? I don't see it explicitly written in the enumeration, so how did the Congress find the power to enact such. RESPOND TO THE POINT WITHOUT THE DODGING AND DANCING!

One of those laws you listed, laws against mailbox vandalism and mail theft could certainly be considered necessary and proper to carry into execution the specific enumerated power to establish post offices and post roads. For if one's mailbox is damaged or one's mail is stolen, it interferes with that specific enumerated power.

However, laws against mail fraud (or simply, fraud), foreign lottery fraud, identity theft, and ad nauseum don't seem to be laws that are necessary and proper to carry into execution any of congress' specifically enumerated powers. So, constitutionally, there doesn't seem to be any justification for such laws.

And getting back to gun control, it seems you're hanging your hat on the idea that gun control laws are necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specific enumerated powers. Which one, exactly?

You don't want to discuss the plethora of criminal statutes passed by Congress relating to the interference with the mail and Postal Service operations, but rather restrict them to a fraction of the actual number to avoid their implications in the broader picture. In effect, your opinion is shading your judgment to refrain from admitting the broad scope of the necessary and proper clause.

News flash...YOUR OPINION IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND! I'll take the guidance of SCOTUS from C.J. Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) on through United States v. Comstock (2010) to today over your opinion or that of anyone else in determining the extent of the enumerated powers along with the what and the how! Take a shot at reading the cases cited and comparing the rulings against your opinions, which I don't believe for one moment are YOUR original studied opinions.

Just as the necessary and proper clause permits Congress to pass those criminal statutes regarding crimes involving the Postal Service, the same would necessarily apply to interstate commerce, FOR ONE EXAMPLE, to formulate and apply criminal statutes and incumbent regulations. Those would and do include LIMITATIONS to weapons under specific circumstances by way of the necessary and proper clause per SCOTUS rulings and precedents [see US v. Miller (1939) , United States v. Miller > for primary exemplar]. Your opinions are notwithstanding. The High Court is the final arbiter and it has spoken to that issue for nearly 200 years.

 

[Centinel]

You don't want to discuss the plethora of criminal statutes passed by Congress relating to the interference with the mail and Postal Service operations, but rather restrict them to a fraction of the actual number to avoid their implications in the broader picture.

I am happy to discuss them. In fact, I discussed them in my last post.

In effect, your opinion is shading your judgment to refrain from admitting the broad scope of the necessary and proper clause.

News flash...YOUR OPINION IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND! I'll take the guidance of SCOTUS from C.J. Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) on through United States v. Comstock (2010) to today over your opinion or that of anyone else in determining the extent of the enumerated powers along with the what and the how! Take a shot at reading the cases cited and comparing the rulings against your opinions, which I don't believe for one moment are YOUR original studied opinions.

Just as the necessary and proper clause permits Congress to pass those criminal statutes regarding crimes involving the Postal Service, the same would necessarily apply to interstate commerce, FOR ONE EXAMPLE, to formulate and apply criminal statutes and incumbent regulations. Those would and do include LIMITATIONS to weapons under specific circumstances by way of the necessary and proper clause per SCOTUS rulings and precedents [see US v. Miller (1939) , United States v. Miller > for primary exemplar]. Your opinions are notwithstanding. The High Court is the final arbiter and it has spoken to that issue for nearly 200 years.

So you're saying that gun control laws are necessary and proper to carry into execution one of congress' specifically enumerated powers. Are you now saying that gun control is necessary and proper to carry into execution the power to regulate commerce among the states? Is that the specific power from which you contend the implied power emanates?

 

[Timmy]

None of our rights are absolute . All of them have limits otherwise you'd have chaos .

 

[Centinel]

None of our rights are absolute . All of them have limits otherwise you'd have chaos .

People ought to be free to act in any way they please, as long as they don't violate the person or property of others.

 

[Clementine]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Apparently, you think they'd act like the idiots in Chicago. You are mistaken. I doubt if most would have a problem with it. It's the thugs and criminals who illegally carry guns and they intend to kill people. The rest of us just like being able to defend ourselves if we meet up with these animals or if they decide to invade our homes.

We have a right to defend ourselves and aren't willing to sacrifice our lives and the lives of our families just so liberals can gain a false sense of security because of strict gun control. Thanks to the strict laws in places like Chicago, the thugs rule.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You don't want to discuss the plethora of criminal statutes passed by Congress relating to the interference with the mail and Postal Service operations, but rather restrict them to a fraction of the actual number to avoid their implications in the broader picture.

I am happy to discuss them. In fact, I discussed them in my last post.

In effect, your opinion is shading your judgment to refrain from admitting the broad scope of the necessary and proper clause.

News flash...YOUR OPINION IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND! I'll take the guidance of SCOTUS from C.J. Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) on through United States v. Comstock (2010) to today over your opinion or that of anyone else in determining the extent of the enumerated powers along with the what and the how! Take a shot at reading the cases cited and comparing the rulings against your opinions, which I don't believe for one moment are YOUR original studied opinions.

Just as the necessary and proper clause permits Congress to pass those criminal statutes regarding crimes involving the Postal Service, the same would necessarily apply to interstate commerce, FOR ONE EXAMPLE, to formulate and apply criminal statutes and incumbent regulations. Those would and do include LIMITATIONS to weapons under specific circumstances by way of the necessary and proper clause per SCOTUS rulings and precedents [see US v. Miller (1939) , United States v. Miller > for primary exemplar]. Your opinions are notwithstanding. The High Court is the final arbiter and it has spoken to that issue for nearly 200 years.

So you're saying that gun control laws are necessary and proper to carry into execution on of congress' specifically enumerated powers. Are you now saying that gun control is necessary and proper to carry into execution the power to regulate commerce among the states? Is that the specific power from which you contend the implied power emanates?

Can you be anymore ridiculous in your rhetoric to deflect from responding to the subject? You know damn well what I'm saying and playing stupid is nothing but a dishonest ploy to save face. What I'm saying is read and understand the case law I've put in front of you and find the coin to pay attention without playing your childish rhetorical games, fool!

It is obvious to me you will never acknowledge the scope and necessity of the necessary and proper clause because it destroys your initial assertion that there are no constitutional grounds for criminal and regulatory statutes to be found within the enumerated powers of Congress. Effectively, you are saying you know better than SCOTUS since 1819 up to the present.

 

[Centinel]

Can you be anymore ridiculous in your rhetoric to deflect from responding to the subject? You know damn well what I'm saying and playing stupid is nothing but a dishonest ploy to save face. What I'm saying is read and understand the case law I've put in front of you and find the coin to pay attention without playing your childish rhetorical games, fool!
It is obvious to me you will never acknowledge the scope and necessity of the necessary and proper clause because it destroys your initial assertion that there are no constitutional grounds for criminal and regulatory statutes to be found within the enumerated powers of Congress. Effectively, you are saying you know better than SCOTUS since 1819 up to the present.

Hm, I don't think I'm deflecting from the subject. If anyone is deflecting, it would seem to be you. I've asked you a question probably four times now and you simply igore it and never answer. Meanwhile, I've answered every question you've posed to me.

Your argument seems to hang on the necesssary and proper clause. You seem to be saying that gun control is necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specifically enumerated powers listed in Art I, section 8. Which one?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Can you be anymore ridiculous in your rhetoric to deflect from responding to the subject? You know damn well what I'm saying and playing stupid is nothing but a dishonest ploy to save face. What I'm saying is read and understand the case law I've put in front of you and find the coin to pay attention without playing your childish rhetorical games, fool!
It is obvious to me you will never acknowledge the scope and necessity of the necessary and proper clause because it destroys your initial assertion that there are no constitutional grounds for criminal and regulatory statutes to be found within the enumerated powers of Congress. Effectively, you are saying you know better than SCOTUS since 1819 up to the present.

Hm, I don't think I'm deflecting from the subject. If anyone is deflecting, it would seem to be you. I've asked you a question probably four times now and you simply igore it and never answer. Meanwhile, I've answered every question you've posed to me.

Your argument seems to hang on the necesssary and proper clause. You seem to be saying that gun control is necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specifically enumerated powers listed in Art I, section 8. Which one?

In your first paragraph, you are projecting your behavior. To claim you've answered every question of mine is plain HORSESHIT! Some yes, but others nothing but deflection.

No, my argument doesn't hang on the necessary and proper clause, per se. It hangs on the case law cited to which you will not respond. Instead, you robotically go to your standard stall of ignoring the point made. So here is one more chance to respond.

In US v. Comstock Justice Breyer wrote in the decision the following;

Indeed even the dissent acknowledges that Congress has the implied power to criminalize any conduct that might interfere with the exercise of an enumerated power, and also the additional power to imprison people who violate those (inferentially authorized) laws, and the additional power to provide for the safe and reasonable management of those prisons, and the additional power to regulate the prisoners’ behavior even after their release.

Why is it impossible for you to acknowledge that the principle of that very same IMPLIED POWER applies to firearm "usage" interfering with an enumerated power such as interstate commerce? The record clearly shows that was the case in the landmark decision in US v. Miller (1939). Or are you going to continue to ignore the case law, put your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA LA?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

The, "bear", part of The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to carry a firearm.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Each of us has a natural right to keep and bear arms. However, a property owner also has the right to place conditions on the use of his property. If a property owner says that I may not carry arms on his property, then that is his prerogative. This has nothing to do with government. It is simply the choice of private individuals or groups of private individuals.

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Do search warrants appear in nature?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

The, "bear", part of The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to carry a firearm.

No, it does not.

The meaning of the term "bear arms" means to "render military service" or "militia duty" as stated by the founding fathers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Each of us has a natural right to keep and bear arms. However, a property owner also has the right to place conditions on the use of his property. If a property owner says that I may not carry arms on his property, then that is his prerogative. This has nothing to do with government. It is simply the choice of private individuals or groups of private individuals.

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Do search warrants appear in nature?

No, and search warrants aren't a natural right, they're a constitutional one.

 

[Rustic]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

The, "bear", part of The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to carry a firearm.

No, it does not.

The meaning of the term "bear arms" means to "render military service" or "militia duty" as stated by the founding fathers.

Na, not really.
Taken in context it means self preservation against any type of oppression. Dumbass

 

[Centinel]

In your first paragraph, you are projecting your behavior. To claim you've answered every question of mine is plain HORSESHIT! Some yes, but others nothing but deflection.

No, my argument doesn't hang on the necessary and proper clause, per se. It hangs on the case law cited to which you will not respond. Instead, you robotically go to your standard stall of ignoring the point made. So here is one more chance to respond.

In US v. Comstock Justice Breyer wrote in the decision the following;

Indeed even the dissent acknowledges that Congress has the implied power to criminalize any conduct that might interfere with the exercise of an enumerated power, and also the additional power to imprison people who violate those (inferentially authorized) laws, and the additional power to provide for the safe and reasonable management of those prisons, and the additional power to regulate the prisoners’ behavior even after their release.

Why is it impossible for you to acknowledge that the principle of that very same IMPLIED POWER applies to firearm "usage" interfering with an enumerated power such as interstate commerce? The record clearly shows that was the case in the landmark decision in US v. Miller (1939). Or are you going to continue to ignore the case law, put your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA LA?

It sounds like now your argument is that gun control laws are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific enumerated power of regulating commerce among the several states. Are you seriously saying that commerce among the several states cannot be regulated without gun control laws? If one state erected tariffs on imports, could not congress simply enact a law forbidding those tariffs? Why would a gun control law be necessary?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In your first paragraph, you are projecting your behavior. To claim you've answered every question of mine is plain HORSESHIT! Some yes, but others nothing but deflection.

No, my argument doesn't hang on the necessary and proper clause, per se. It hangs on the case law cited to which you will not respond. Instead, you robotically go to your standard stall of ignoring the point made. So here is one more chance to respond.

In US v. Comstock Justice Breyer wrote in the decision the following;

Indeed even the dissent acknowledges that Congress has the implied power to criminalize any conduct that might interfere with the exercise of an enumerated power, and also the additional power to imprison people who violate those (inferentially authorized) laws, and the additional power to provide for the safe and reasonable management of those prisons, and the additional power to regulate the prisoners’ behavior even after their release.

Why is it impossible for you to acknowledge that the principle of that very same IMPLIED POWER applies to firearm "usage" interfering with an enumerated power such as interstate commerce? The record clearly shows that was the case in the landmark decision in US v. Miller (1939). Or are you going to continue to ignore the case law, put your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA LA?

It sounds like now your argument is that gun control laws are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific enumerated power of regulating commerce among the several states. Are you seriously saying that commerce among the several states cannot be regulated without gun control laws? If one state erected tariffs on imports, could not congress simply enact a law forbidding those tariffs? Why would a gun control law be necessary?

Is that what it sounds like to you? HORSESHIT!!!! You are a fucking idiot who can't find your ass with either hand. But you are not a true died in the wool fucking idiot, but rather just another easily led fool following some other fool's misguided interpretations because you can't think for yourself or analyze ideas of any complexity above the 8 year old level for yourself!

You can't refute the Supremes interpretations in any of the case law I've cited INCLUDING COMSTOCK so you just ignore it as if it wasn't decided, written down and part of the record that blows your cockeyed assertions out of the water. Then you go back to your robotically contrived "assumptions" ignoring all common sense implications simply to project your own inadequacies and displaying your own lack of intellectual integrity.

You're a dishonest piece of shit playing rhetorical word games for some sort of ego exercise known only to yourself for your own demented satisfaction. Now...

 

[Centinel]

In your first paragraph, you are projecting your behavior. To claim you've answered every question of mine is plain HORSESHIT! Some yes, but others nothing but deflection.

No, my argument doesn't hang on the necessary and proper clause, per se. It hangs on the case law cited to which you will not respond. Instead, you robotically go to your standard stall of ignoring the point made. So here is one more chance to respond.

In US v. Comstock Justice Breyer wrote in the decision the following;

Indeed even the dissent acknowledges that Congress has the implied power to criminalize any conduct that might interfere with the exercise of an enumerated power, and also the additional power to imprison people who violate those (inferentially authorized) laws, and the additional power to provide for the safe and reasonable management of those prisons, and the additional power to regulate the prisoners’ behavior even after their release.

Why is it impossible for you to acknowledge that the principle of that very same IMPLIED POWER applies to firearm "usage" interfering with an enumerated power such as interstate commerce? The record clearly shows that was the case in the landmark decision in US v. Miller (1939). Or are you going to continue to ignore the case law, put your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA LA?

It sounds like now your argument is that gun control laws are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific enumerated power of regulating commerce among the several states. Are you seriously saying that commerce among the several states cannot be regulated without gun control laws? If one state erected tariffs on imports, could not congress simply enact a law forbidding those tariffs? Why would a gun control law be necessary?

Is that what it sounds like to you? HORSESHIT!!!! You are a fucking idiot who can't find your ass with either hand. But you are not a true died in the wool fucking idiot, but rather just another easily led fool following some other fool's misguided interpretations because you can't think for yourself or analyze ideas of any complexity above the 8 year old level for yourself!

You can't refute the Supremes interpretations in any of the case law I've cited INCLUDING COMSTOCK so you just ignore it as if it wasn't decided, written down and part of the record that blows your cockeyed assertions out of the water. Then you go back to your robotically contrived "assumptions" ignoring all common sense implications simply to project your own inadequacies and displaying your own lack of intellectual integrity.

You're a dishonest piece of shit playing rhetorical word games for some sort of ego exercise known only to yourself for your own demented satisfaction. Now...

When the states created their union, they delegated to it limited legislative powers. These powers are specifically enumerated in art I, section 8. Any legitimate federal law must be necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specifically enumerated powers. Otherwise it does not fall within congress' legitimate authority. Even the supreme court can't change this fact.

None of the specific enumerated powers would require gun control in order to be carried into execution. Therefore, such a law would exceed the power that the states delegated to congress.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In your first paragraph, you are projecting your behavior. To claim you've answered every question of mine is plain HORSESHIT! Some yes, but others nothing but deflection.

No, my argument doesn't hang on the necessary and proper clause, per se. It hangs on the case law cited to which you will not respond. Instead, you robotically go to your standard stall of ignoring the point made. So here is one more chance to respond.

In US v. Comstock Justice Breyer wrote in the decision the following;

Indeed even the dissent acknowledges that Congress has the implied power to criminalize any conduct that might interfere with the exercise of an enumerated power, and also the additional power to imprison people who violate those (inferentially authorized) laws, and the additional power to provide for the safe and reasonable management of those prisons, and the additional power to regulate the prisoners’ behavior even after their release.

Why is it impossible for you to acknowledge that the principle of that very same IMPLIED POWER applies to firearm "usage" interfering with an enumerated power such as interstate commerce? The record clearly shows that was the case in the landmark decision in US v. Miller (1939). Or are you going to continue to ignore the case law, put your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA LA?

It sounds like now your argument is that gun control laws are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific enumerated power of regulating commerce among the several states. Are you seriously saying that commerce among the several states cannot be regulated without gun control laws? If one state erected tariffs on imports, could not congress simply enact a law forbidding those tariffs? Why would a gun control law be necessary?

Is that what it sounds like to you? HORSESHIT!!!! You are a fucking idiot who can't find your ass with either hand. But you are not a true died in the wool fucking idiot, but rather just another easily led fool following some other fool's misguided interpretations because you can't think for yourself or analyze ideas of any complexity above the 8 year old level for yourself!

You can't refute the Supremes interpretations in any of the case law I've cited INCLUDING COMSTOCK so you just ignore it as if it wasn't decided, written down and part of the record that blows your cockeyed assertions out of the water. Then you go back to your robotically contrived "assumptions" ignoring all common sense implications simply to project your own inadequacies and displaying your own lack of intellectual integrity.

You're a dishonest piece of shit playing rhetorical word games for some sort of ego exercise known only to yourself for your own demented satisfaction. Now...

When the states created their union, they delegated to it limited legislative powers. These powers are specifically enumerated in art I, section 8. Any legitimate federal law must be necessary and proper to carry into execution one of the specifically enumerated powers. Otherwise it does not fall within congress' legitimate authority. Even the supreme court can't change this fact.

None of the specific enumerated powers would require gun control in order to be carried into execution. Therefore, such a law would exceed the power that the states delegated to congress.

And yet, you fucking idiot, gun control statutes have been passed into law, been reviewed by SCOTUS and been scrutinized as to their Constitutionality. Some portions have failed the test such as in US v. Lopez the GFSZA being a reach too far for the Commerce Clause for an intrastate school zone and not interfering with interstate commerce; a Congressional fuck up by over zealous proponents of the Brady Amendments to the 1968 NFA. But then their was US v. Miller where SCOTUS had no problem with upholding the law forbidding the transportation of machine guns across State lines on interstate commerce grounds if it didn't have the required tax stamp under the NFA!

When one gets to DC v. Heller, Justice Scalia wrote in the decision that Congress had long standing authority to regulate non-military (militia) firearms/weapons for various reasons. But did you pay any attention to those citations? FUCK NO because you are too damn influenced by dogma and propaganda from the States Rights dummies still fighting the fucking Civil War and their offshoots of assorted crackpots and pud pounders!

I've supplied documented material to support my position, but you have supplied nothing but your BLOODY ERRONEOUS OPINIONS. I guess the powers that be aren't listening to your half-assed OPINIONS are they! You have no credibility and you have oft displayed your lack of integrity and poor character to say nothing of your ignorance of things Constitutional.

Here is a good recent example from today when you wrote;

If one state erected tariffs on imports, could not congress simply enact a law forbidding those tariffs?

If you understood what was contained within Article I you would know that that scenario would be IMPOSSIBLE to occur, except perhaps in your little fantasy world. Article I, §10, Cls 2 states the following;

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.[Emphasis Added]

If you didn't know that, then how the FUCK can you claim any expertise regarding more complex Constitutional points which go layers deep? The correct answer is you are incapable of such depth. Now go bugger off!