Second Amendment Rights

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

You people have never been right about that argument. Sorry

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Apparently the GOP agrees with me ...

I was at the Ford dealership a year ago and the guy standing in line in front of me was open carrying. At no time did I ever wonder if he would start a mass shooting.

Perhaps you should get your T levels checked.

 

[PredFan]

I just read that they're refusing to let guns in.

Repubs/GOP - biggest pansy hypiocrites ever.

But you can bet the guards around Trumpery and Carnival Cruz et all will be packing.

It's private property moron. The owners make the rules, not the GOP.

 

[Centinel]

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!

Actually, I have presented you with evidence, namely the text of the constitution. You have simply chosen to ignore it. The constituiton specifically enumerates the legislative powers that the states gave to congress. They also gave congress the power to enact laws necessary and proper to carry these specific enumerated powers into execution. It's all right there in black and white.

So a law that is necessary and proper to carry a specific enumerated power into execution is perfectly legitimate, as in your example of a law punishing those who steal mail. However, gun control laws are not necessary to implement any of the specific powers granted (unless you care to identify which enumerated power requires them in order to be carried into execution).

Remember, it is the constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it (and only those laws), that are the supreme law of the land. Not the dictates of the supreme court or congress.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

Actually, I have presented you with evidence, namely the text of the constitution. You have simply chosen to ignore it. The constituiton specifically enumerates the legislative powers that the states gave to congress. They also gave congress the power to enact laws necessary and proper to carry these specific enumerated powers into execution. It's all right there in black and white.

So a law that is necessary and proper to carry a specific enumerated power into execution is perfectly legitimate, as in your example of a law punishing those who steal mail. However, gun control laws are not necessary to implement any of the specific powers granted (unless you care to identify which enumerated power requires them in order to be carried into execution).

Remember, it is the constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it (and only those laws), that are the supreme law of the land. Not the dictates of the supreme court or congress.

OH BLOODY HORSESHIT! You stated you INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION! That is OPINION NOT EVIDENCE! It was ignored at all...it was read, evaluated as bullshit and only then, discarded as an unsubstantiated OPINION, shit for brains! A big difference from your characterization, which is actually another projection on your part.

Now you're even claiming, effectively, that Hamilton got it all wrong in Federalist #81 and SCOTUS decisions are restrained by the enumerated powers of Congress to be within the boundaries you claim exist! Is there no end to your innate stupidity? News Flash Mr. Know-It-All...Judicial Review is part of the Check and Balance process to act as a brake on Legislative and Executive excesses! You know exactly Jack Shit Constitutionally speaking! Edify thyself dipstick!

 

[Centinel]

OH BLOODY HORSESHIT! You stated you INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION! That is OPINION NOT EVIDENCE! It was ignored at all...it was read, evaluated as bullshit and only then, discarded as an unsubstantiated OPINION, shit for brains! A big difference from your characterization, which is actually another projection on your part.

Now you're even claiming, effectively, that Hamilton got it all wrong in Federalist #81 and SCOTUS decisions are restrained by the enumerated powers of Congress to be within the boundaries you claim exist! Is there no end to your innate stupidity? News Flash Mr. Know-It-All...Judicial Review is part of the Check and Balance process to act as a brake on Legislative and Executive excesses! You know exactly Jack Shit Constitutionally speaking! Edify thyself dipstick!

So are you saying that you think congress may legitimately enact laws beyond those that are necessary and proper to carry into execution their specifically enumerated powers?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

OH BLOODY HORSESHIT! You stated you INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION! That is OPINION NOT EVIDENCE! It was ignored at all...it was read, evaluated as bullshit and only then, discarded as an unsubstantiated OPINION, shit for brains! A big difference from your characterization, which is actually another projection on your part.

Now you're even claiming, effectively, that Hamilton got it all wrong in Federalist #81 and SCOTUS decisions are restrained by the enumerated powers of Congress to be within the boundaries you claim exist! Is there no end to your innate stupidity? News Flash Mr. Know-It-All...Judicial Review is part of the Check and Balance process to act as a brake on Legislative and Executive excesses! You know exactly Jack Shit Constitutionally speaking! Edify thyself dipstick!

So are you saying that you think congress may legitimately enact laws beyond those that are necessary and proper to carry into execution their specifically enumerated powers?

So are you saying that you still have urges to molest young people and feel it is necessary and proper to do so because Congress is prohibited from violating a State's sovereignty even if it might be necessary and proper to throw your funky ass in Federal prison?

OH SHIT...I was channeling you for a moment there!

 

[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?

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

Just like owning and carrying a gun is a right. Glad we got that straight...lol

 

[Centinel]

So are you saying that you still have urges to molest young people and feel it is necessary and proper to do so because Congress is prohibited from violating a State's sovereignty even if it might be necessary and proper to throw your funky ass in Federal prison?

That's quite an interesting clarifying question, and the answer to your question is that I have never had the sorts of urges you described.

Allow me to ask again. Do you agree or disagree that congress may legitimately enact laws beyond those that are necessary and proper to carry into execution their specifically enumerated powers?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So are you saying that you still have urges to molest young people and feel it is necessary and proper to do so because Congress is prohibited from violating a State's sovereignty even if it might be necessary and proper to throw your funky ass in Federal prison?

That's quite an interesting clarifying question, and the answer to your question is that I have never had the sorts of urges you described.

Allow me to ask again. Do you agree or disagree that congress may legitimately enact laws beyond those that are necessary and proper to carry into execution their specifically enumerated powers?

How do we know for sure that you, "...have never had the sorts of urges...described." Of course you probably haven't, but is there proof of such? Can you definitively prove you haven't. In a court of law do you think your declaration would have total weight in your exoneration? Is the court going to take your word alone when the prosecution presents rock solid documented evidence to the contrary? Now apply that logic to the topics at hand.

All you have presented to support your assertions are your opinions, and I have presented case law; rock solid documented evidence to the contrary. Your question makes no bloody sense. It's an illegitimate question that displays your poor understanding of Article I. Further, it is nothing more than a dodge to avoid directly responding to each of my documented backed points refuting your misinterpretations as you dole them out.

In United States 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.

AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION;

Neither we nor the dissent can point to a single specific enumerated power “that justifies a criminal defendant’s arrest or conviction,” post, at 12, in all cases because Congress relies on different enumerated powers (often, but not exclusively, its Commerce Clause power) to enact its various federal criminal statutes, see supra, at 7–8. But every such statute must itself be legitimately predicated on an enumerated power. And the same enumerated power that justifies the creation of a federal criminal statute, and that justifies the additional implied federal powers that the dissent considers legitimate, justifies civil commitment under §4248 as well. See supra, at 14–16. Thus, we must reject respondents’ argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause permits no more than a single step between an enumerated power and an Act of Congress. [Emphasis Added]

Now will you understand it this time around or doesn't it fit into your scheme? The implied powers are not incorporated into each discrete enumerated power. There simply isn't enough parchment in the fucking world to write down the thousands upon thousands of possibilities or enough time to read each and every possibility under the damn Sun. You won't like the implications of the citations above, but tough shit! You'll likely ignore them yet again in any case.

 

[Centinel]

How do we know for sure that you, "...have never had the sorts of urges...described." Of course you probably haven't, but is there proof of such? Can you definitively prove you haven't. In a court of law do you think your declaration would have total weight in your exoneration? Is the court going to take your word alone when the prosecution presents rock solid documented evidence to the contrary? Now apply that logic to the topics at hand.

All you have presented to support your assertions are your opinions, and I have presented case law; rock solid documented evidence to the contrary. Your question makes no bloody sense. It's an illegitimate question that displays your poor understanding of Article I. Further, it is nothing more than a dodge to avoid directly responding to each of my documented backed points refuting your misinterpretations as you dole them out.

In United States 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.

AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION;

Neither we nor the dissent can point to a single specific enumerated power “that justifies a criminal defendant’s arrest or conviction,” post, at 12, in all cases because Congress relies on different enumerated powers (often, but not exclusively, its Commerce Clause power) to enact its various federal criminal statutes, see supra, at 7–8. But every such statute must itself be legitimately predicated on an enumerated power. And the same enumerated power that justifies the creation of a federal criminal statute, and that justifies the additional implied federal powers that the dissent considers legitimate, justifies civil commitment under §4248 as well. See supra, at 14–16. Thus, we must reject respondents’ argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause permits no more than a single step between an enumerated power and an Act of Congress. [Emphasis Added]

Now will you understand it this time around or doesn't it fit into your scheme? The implied powers are not incorporated into each discrete enumerated power. There simply isn't enough parchment in the fucking world to write down the thousands upon thousands of possibilities or enough time to read each and every possibility under the damn Sun. You won't like the implications of the citations above, but tough shit! You'll likely ignore them yet again in any case.

You have said my question makes no sense. But it's really very simple and you should be able to understand it. Let me rephrase, and maybe that will help.

Would you say that every law that congress enacts, in order to be legitimate, must be necessary and proper for bringing into execution one of it's specifically enumerated powers?

 

[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.

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

You can always tell a bad argument. People need insults to try and "win" their argument.

You have nothing other than your own definition of words. So you insult.

I won't be bothering you again.

 

[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.

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.

The Founders never said that.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

How do we know for sure that you, "...have never had the sorts of urges...described." Of course you probably haven't, but is there proof of such? Can you definitively prove you haven't. In a court of law do you think your declaration would have total weight in your exoneration? Is the court going to take your word alone when the prosecution presents rock solid documented evidence to the contrary? Now apply that logic to the topics at hand.

All you have presented to support your assertions are your opinions, and I have presented case law; rock solid documented evidence to the contrary. Your question makes no bloody sense. It's an illegitimate question that displays your poor understanding of Article I. Further, it is nothing more than a dodge to avoid directly responding to each of my documented backed points refuting your misinterpretations as you dole them out.

In United States 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.

AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION;

Neither we nor the dissent can point to a single specific enumerated power “that justifies a criminal defendant’s arrest or conviction,” post, at 12, in all cases because Congress relies on different enumerated powers (often, but not exclusively, its Commerce Clause power) to enact its various federal criminal statutes, see supra, at 7–8. But every such statute must itself be legitimately predicated on an enumerated power. And the same enumerated power that justifies the creation of a federal criminal statute, and that justifies the additional implied federal powers that the dissent considers legitimate, justifies civil commitment under §4248 as well. See supra, at 14–16. Thus, we must reject respondents’ argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause permits no more than a single step between an enumerated power and an Act of Congress. [Emphasis Added]

Now will you understand it this time around or doesn't it fit into your scheme? The implied powers are not incorporated into each discrete enumerated power. There simply isn't enough parchment in the fucking world to write down the thousands upon thousands of possibilities or enough time to read each and every possibility under the damn Sun. You won't like the implications of the citations above, but tough shit! You'll likely ignore them yet again in any case.

You have said my question makes no sense. But it's really very simple and you should be able to understand it. Let me rephrase, and maybe that will help.

Would you say that every law that congress enacts, in order to be legitimate, must be necessary and proper for bringing into execution one of it's specifically enumerated powers?

What, no response to what I wrote? Fuck that shit! For once, respond to every damn point I made in detail or go piss up a rope. You are not the majordomo of this here discussion just as I am not. Can you understand the concept of a two-way street?

 

[westwall]

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.

No argument from me. The more good people who are carrying weapons, the better. I was carrying at our Democrat Caucuses.

 

[Centinel]

How do we know for sure that you, "...have never had the sorts of urges...described." Of course you probably haven't, but is there proof of such? Can you definitively prove you haven't. In a court of law do you think your declaration would have total weight in your exoneration? Is the court going to take your word alone when the prosecution presents rock solid documented evidence to the contrary? Now apply that logic to the topics at hand.

All you have presented to support your assertions are your opinions, and I have presented case law; rock solid documented evidence to the contrary. Your question makes no bloody sense. It's an illegitimate question that displays your poor understanding of Article I. Further, it is nothing more than a dodge to avoid directly responding to each of my documented backed points refuting your misinterpretations as you dole them out.

In United States 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.

AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION;

Neither we nor the dissent can point to a single specific enumerated power “that justifies a criminal defendant’s arrest or conviction,” post, at 12, in all cases because Congress relies on different enumerated powers (often, but not exclusively, its Commerce Clause power) to enact its various federal criminal statutes, see supra, at 7–8. But every such statute must itself be legitimately predicated on an enumerated power. And the same enumerated power that justifies the creation of a federal criminal statute, and that justifies the additional implied federal powers that the dissent considers legitimate, justifies civil commitment under §4248 as well. See supra, at 14–16. Thus, we must reject respondents’ argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause permits no more than a single step between an enumerated power and an Act of Congress. [Emphasis Added]

Now will you understand it this time around or doesn't it fit into your scheme? The implied powers are not incorporated into each discrete enumerated power. There simply isn't enough parchment in the fucking world to write down the thousands upon thousands of possibilities or enough time to read each and every possibility under the damn Sun. You won't like the implications of the citations above, but tough shit! You'll likely ignore them yet again in any case.

You have said my question makes no sense. But it's really very simple and you should be able to understand it. Let me rephrase, and maybe that will help.

Would you say that every law that congress enacts, in order to be legitimate, must be necessary and proper for bringing into execution one of it's specifically enumerated powers?

What, no response to what I wrote? Fuck that shit! For once, respond to every damn point I made in detail or go piss up a rope. You are not the majordomo of this here discussion just as I am not. Can you understand the concept of a two-way street?

Sure. Do you have a question for me? I'd be happy to answer.

Then maybe you'll answer mine. Would you say that every law that congress enacts, in order to be legitimate, must be necessary and proper for bringing into execution one of it's specifically enumerated powers?

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

No argument from me. The more good people who are carrying weapons, the better. I was carrying at our Democrat Caucuses.

How do you know everyone carrying are "good people"?
In the wild west, everyone carried and the last one standing was "good People".

 

[westwall]

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.

No argument from me. The more good people who are carrying weapons, the better. I was carrying at our Democrat Caucuses.

How do you know everyone carrying are "good people"?
In the wild west, everyone carried and the last one standing was "good People".

What I do know is that the majority of people out there are good ones. Why in the world would you demand that you disarm the good people (who are the overwhelming majority) while ignoring the bad people who get guns anyway and have shown beyond doubt that they could give a flying fuck for the laws of this land?

Riddle me that batman...

As far as your old west analogy. It is factually incorrect. I suggest you look up the book Gunfighters Highwaymen and Vigilantes. It is a scholarly look at crime in the west as compared to the eastern US. Guess what, violent crime was worse in the east which was supposedly "civilized".

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

How do we know for sure that you, "...have never had the sorts of urges...described." Of course you probably haven't, but is there proof of such? Can you definitively prove you haven't. In a court of law do you think your declaration would have total weight in your exoneration? Is the court going to take your word alone when the prosecution presents rock solid documented evidence to the contrary? Now apply that logic to the topics at hand.

All you have presented to support your assertions are your opinions, and I have presented case law; rock solid documented evidence to the contrary. Your question makes no bloody sense. It's an illegitimate question that displays your poor understanding of Article I. Further, it is nothing more than a dodge to avoid directly responding to each of my documented backed points refuting your misinterpretations as you dole them out.

In United States 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.

AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION;

Neither we nor the dissent can point to a single specific enumerated power “that justifies a criminal defendant’s arrest or conviction,” post, at 12, in all cases because Congress relies on different enumerated powers (often, but not exclusively, its Commerce Clause power) to enact its various federal criminal statutes, see supra, at 7–8. But every such statute must itself be legitimately predicated on an enumerated power. And the same enumerated power that justifies the creation of a federal criminal statute, and that justifies the additional implied federal powers that the dissent considers legitimate, justifies civil commitment under §4248 as well. See supra, at 14–16. Thus, we must reject respondents’ argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause permits no more than a single step between an enumerated power and an Act of Congress. [Emphasis Added]

Now will you understand it this time around or doesn't it fit into your scheme? The implied powers are not incorporated into each discrete enumerated power. There simply isn't enough parchment in the fucking world to write down the thousands upon thousands of possibilities or enough time to read each and every possibility under the damn Sun. You won't like the implications of the citations above, but tough shit! You'll likely ignore them yet again in any case.

You have said my question makes no sense. But it's really very simple and you should be able to understand it. Let me rephrase, and maybe that will help.

Would you say that every law that congress enacts, in order to be legitimate, must be necessary and proper for bringing into execution one of it's specifically enumerated powers?

What, no response to what I wrote? Fuck that shit! For once, respond to every damn point I made in detail or go piss up a rope. You are not the majordomo of this here discussion just as I am not. Can you understand the concept of a two-way street?

Sure. Do you have a question for me? I'd be happy to answer.

Then maybe you'll answer mine.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote or you just want to sweep it under the rug as you have done over and again. You haven't responded to those citations so until you do, go piss up a rope as you've already been instructed!

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...