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.
You are sad that abusers cannot buy guns. Are you confused about your own topic?
Do you understand what irony is?Oh the fucking irony
"Look, that violent abuser NEEDS to be able to own a rifle that lets them shoot at multiple people from a safe distance" - typical MAGA voterHe loves guns so much that he thinks that people with history of violence should allowed own a firearm and once they have that firearm, they can kill their partner or children because HE wants them to own a firearm.
Why cant you bootlickers pass a fucking amendment, instead of letting the government gain power they arent supposed to have?He loves guns so much that he thinks that people with history of violence should allowed own a firearm and once they have that firearm, they can kill their partner or children because HE wants them to own a firearm.
Thats not what this is about. This is about someone getting a restraining order on you, and you lose rights. There is no due process. Just like red flag laws.Before this thread goes totally off the tracks, let me just say, that if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, or any other violent crime, their ability to exercise their 2a right should be suspended for a proscribed period of time. At least until they’ve completed their adjudication and are deemed to not be a threat.
That’s common sense, and I say that as a lifetime NRA member, and a CCP holder that believes in the constitution…
"Look, that violent abuser NEEDS to be able to own a rifle that lets them shoot at multiple people from a safe distance" - typical MAGA voter
apnews.com
You are sad that abusers cannot buy guns. Are you confused about your own topic?
Why should I answer a stupid question? As of today, states are allowed to ban violent abusers from owning guns, adding to the list of reasons someone might be prevented from buying a gun. You're still free to scour the constitution for no reason at all, though, if you like.I'm asking where in our federal Constitution has our federal government been granted power to enact and enforce the law referenced by the Supreme Court.
I guess you can't answer the question.
More important than your triggered whining. Funny how the same douchbags who excuse illegal alien crimes as rare or inconsequential have the gall to attack one of our fundamental rights over rare events like this shooting in Arkansas.Have no fear's gun huggers, your right to shoot grocery stores is still alive and intact.
Grocery Store Shooting In South Arkansas Kills 2 and Wounds Six, Police Say.
Shooting at grocery store in Arkansas kills 3 and wounds 10 others, police say
A shooter opened fire Friday at a grocery store in Fordyce, Arkansas, killing three people and wounding 10 others, police said.
FORDYCE, Ark. (AP) — Two people were killed and six wounded, including one law enforcement officer, when a shooter opened fire Friday at a grocery store in Arkansas, police said.
The shooting occurred at the Mad Butcher grocery store in Fordyce. The suspected shooter was critically injured after being shot by police, Arkansas State Police said. An officer was among those shot but did not have life-threatening injuries.
Police did not immediately say whether the shooting occurred inside or outside the store. Authorities planned to hold a news briefing on the shooting later Friday afternoon.
Fordyce is a city of about 3,200 people located 65 miles (104 kilometers) south of Little Rock.
My Family is from Arkansas, I was born in Little Rock. This is naked killing for the sake of killing....by someone with a firearm.
I saw this on the AP site and cringed. I called my cousin in Fordayce, she and her children were not harmed, husband was work is safe. Tell us again how important the 2nd. Amendment is.
Why should I answer a stupid question?
I'm asking where in our federal Constitution has our federal government been granted power to enact and enforce the law referenced by the Supreme Court.
I guess you can't answer the question.
I'm asking where in our federal Constitution has our federal government been granted power to enact and enforce the law referenced by the Supreme Court.
I guess you can't answer the question.
Your the one butthurt about the decisionA stupid question? Our Supreme Court asked that question you nitwit. Learn to read and comprehend what you read.
See the OP
.
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI
.
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal statute prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Respondent Zackey Rahimi is subject to such an order. The question is whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Your the one butthurt about the decision
You still haven't answered the question. Where in our federal Constitution has our federal government been granted power to enact and enforce the law referenced by the Supreme Court?
See: Supreme Court upholds federal ban on guns for domestic abusers
.
Also see:
.
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI
.
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal statute prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Respondent Zackey Rahimi is subject to such an order. The question is whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Well, to answer ROBERTS question, we must first discover why the Second Amendment was adopted, and to factually answer that question we need to review the pertinent historical evidence as to why the Second Amendment, along with nine other amendments, were presented to the States for their approval. And where do we find the evidence? We find it in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 which confirms its intent is to preserve federalism, our constitution’s plan.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.
So, the very purpose of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the newly created federal government from entering the states and exercising its powers within the various state borders, and preserving federalism, our Constitution’s plan.
Additional evidence confirming this fact is James Madison, speaking with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and acknowledging their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:
“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution
The bottom line is, the following Supreme Court Justices took it upon themselves to do for the people what the States and people therein, intentionally prohibited when adding the Second Amendment to the Constitution: ROBERTS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON
In addition to removing the Second Amendment from the Constitution, the above Justices also shredded the Tenth Amendment which was aptly summarized by Madison in Federalist Number 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Finally, let us recall a warning found in “The Old Guard”, a monthly journal devoted to the principles of 1776 and 1787, published in pamphlet form in 1862:
"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin."
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
You still haven't answered the question. Where in our federal Constitution has our federal government been granted power to enact and enforce the law referenced by the Supreme Court?
