The power to ban firearms...?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We as a people need to decide these questions. The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

Personally, I think we're all better off and safer if citizens can own semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Probably wouldn't be comfortable with a store selling grenade launchers, however. I personally would draw the line there. But we should leave all semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols alone.

This term "living document' was invented by those who see the world in shades of grey.
They essentially convinced themselves they should be able to interpret the Constitution in any way they wished based on what they wanted to do.
Let's clear this up right now. The answer is 'no'...The US Constitution is what it is.
The Framers wrote it and amended it before it was ratified. The only way the US Constitution can be changed is by a convention, legislative action in Washington, then approval by 38 State's Legislatures. Only then can there be any Amendment.

No! no! no!, Read Article V. Doesn't take a convention to amend the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended 15 times since it was ratified. The 15 added to the first 10 that were included to get the Constitution ratified make the total 25 Amendments. The last 15 were done without a Constitutional Convention using the first part of the first sentence in Art. V. I have wondered why they didn't use two sentences, but they didn't have my English Teacher.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or," (not and. OR means either procedure can be used)

The First, and only, Constitutional Convention was in session when the first Ten were passed.
That's why they were called the "Bill Of Rights".

The Constitution is not a "Living Document" BTW. That is more Liberal/Progressive propaganda.

Quote - "The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so." - Quote
I don't know where you got this, but it surely didn't come from the Framers of the Constitution! Maybe started by the Woodrow Wilson Regime.

And the Constitutional is not ‘literal,’ nor is it ‘strictly constructed.’

Justice Kennedy best explained the nature of the Constitution in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The Constitution is not, therefore, some static blueprint for government; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that codifies our civil liberties and places restriction on government’s authority to limit those civil liberties.

But our civil rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government when warranted and justified in the context of the Constitution and its case law – this includes the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

It is a clear example of the presumptive power of government over and above the Constitution and upheld by the support of a substantial percentage of our increasingly submissive population -- the anti-gun voters. It essentially is the same situation that enables the rigid prohibition against possessing or making use of a natural plant -- cannabis.

Presumptive power bypasses the Constitution and common sense and is supported by the stupidity and submissive nature of a large number of brainwashed American citizens.

Most Liberal voters don't even know what the Constitution is, much less care, and thanks to our government indoctrination Centers the number of brainwashed is rapidly growing.

In fact, it is conservatives who, for the most part, exhibit ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Iceweasel]

Justice Kennedy best explained the nature of the Constitution in Lawrence.

Gee, who would have thought a liberal judge would think it's as flexible as they see fit? LOL.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once again another gun thread crashes and burns as a result of ignorant extremists who refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution indeed authorizes the government to place reasonable restrictions on our civil rights, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – and including the authority afforded to government to ban certain types of weapons.

Rather than engaging in a meaningful, intelligent discussion as to what firearms might be constitutionally prohibited and what firearms might not, they instead adhere blindly to the errant notion that the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute’ and all regulatory measures ‘un-Constitutional.’

Pity.

 

[HenryBHough]

A mild, flexible view of The U.S. Constitution is so popular these days.

Won't be long before it won't be remembered at all.

Consider that most schools no longer acknowledge that such a thing might ever have existed.

Consider that if you have a pocket version of The U.S. Constitution on your person when TSA turns on the porn-o-ray you will be strip searched.

Consider that although I have purposely dramatized in the above you find it somewhat plausible.

Today.

Care to consider tomorrow?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once again another gun thread crashes and burns....

... because no one can provide a sound answer to the question posed in the OP.
Including you.

 

[Iceweasel]

Once again another gun thread crashes and burns as a result of ignorant extremists who refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution indeed authorizes the government to place reasonable restrictions on our civil rights, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – and including the authority afforded to government to ban certain types of weapons.

Rather than engaging in a meaningful, intelligent discussion as to what firearms might be constitutionally prohibited and what firearms might not, they instead adhere blindly to the errant notion that the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute’ and all regulatory measures ‘un-Constitutional.’

Pity.

When did it crash and burn? When you showed up? And who said no regulations would pass muster? I haven't seen anyone advocate the right to cruise missles. Maybe it's you, not everyone else.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

A car is not a protected right – owning a gun is. Therefore, your correlation is completely off.

Further, you cannot show where having such a requirement would have any positive effect whatsoever. You cannot limit a right simply because you want it limited. You need to show real safety advantages which you cannot.

I disagree. People have always had a right to travel. We never needed a license to travel. We once did it by horse. Then cars got invented. THEN....after cars were invented....the concept of a driver's license was invented.

Why? Because they saw that people were using a dangerous tool to travel.

Just like we have a right to self defense and "arms". But when "arms" because very dangerous....the government must regulate them.

Just like they did when they realized humanity's new mode of travel, the car, was dangerous.

Your disagreement is utterly irrelevant. It is a cold hard fact that the right to bear arme is a protected right under the second amendment. It is also a cold hard fact that there is no amendment or protection covering the use of a motor vehicle, period.

There is no wiggle room to disagree with – those are the facts.

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[FA_Q2]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

Because the framers were not perfect or superhuman. They were products of man and the times that they existed in. To think otherwise is asinine.

That does not change the basic fact that our government was formed under or the effective use of the constitution as its governing document. The false allegation of ‘founder worship’ is a complete deflectionary straw man only meant to distract from a point that you cannot debate – try again.

One of the best things about the constitution is the simple fact that it can be changed and updated precisely because the founders could not dream of setting up the ‘perfect’ government or even one that endures for any length of time. To correct errors and ‘update’ the constitution you simply have to create another amendment to change the original document.

 

[Politico]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

Why do you want to take away my RIPG?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Once again another gun thread crashes and burns as a result of ignorant extremists who refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution indeed authorizes the government to place reasonable restrictions on our civil rights, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – and including the authority afforded to government to ban certain types of weapons.

Rather than engaging in a meaningful, intelligent discussion as to what firearms might be constitutionally prohibited and what firearms might not, they instead adhere blindly to the errant notion that the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute’ and all regulatory measures ‘un-Constitutional.’

Pity.

You allow your imagination to get the best of you.
No one with a reasonable approach would suggest there be no limitations or regulations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

Come on. You can do better than that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This term "living document' was invented by those who see the world in shades of grey.
They essentially convinced themselves they should be able to interpret the Constitution in any way they wished based on what they wanted to do.
Let's clear this up right now. The answer is 'no'...The US Constitution is what it is.
The Framers wrote it and amended it before it was ratified. The only way the US Constitution can be changed is by a convention, legislative action in Washington, then approval by 38 State's Legislatures. Only then can there be any Amendment.

No! no! no!, Read Article V. Doesn't take a convention to amend the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended 15 times since it was ratified. The 15 added to the first 10 that were included to get the Constitution ratified make the total 25 Amendments. The last 15 were done without a Constitutional Convention using the first part of the first sentence in Art. V. I have wondered why they didn't use two sentences, but they didn't have my English Teacher.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or," (not and. OR means either procedure can be used)

The First, and only, Constitutional Convention was in session when the first Ten were passed.
That's why they were called the "Bill Of Rights".

The Constitution is not a "Living Document" BTW. That is more Liberal/Progressive propaganda.

Quote - "The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so." - Quote
I don't know where you got this, but it surely didn't come from the Framers of the Constitution! Maybe started by the Woodrow Wilson Regime.

And the Constitutional is not ‘literal,’ nor is it ‘strictly constructed.’

Justice Kennedy best explained the nature of the Constitution in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The Constitution is not, therefore, some static blueprint for government; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that codifies our civil liberties and places restriction on government’s authority to limit those civil liberties.

But our civil rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government when warranted and justified in the context of the Constitution and its case law – this includes the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

That is ONE opinion on ONE case. Please tell me you do not believe this one case essentially makes the US Constitution into a mere piece of paper. A document that can be adhered to or ignored based on what a person, group or advocate wants.

 

[The T]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

Their FIRST STEP was the 3/5ths Compromise...look it up champ. They had to get the South on board with the Constitution. They KNEW slavery would rear it's head again. YOU do NOT know history, do you?

 

[The T]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

Because the framers were not perfect or superhuman. They were products of man and the times that they existed in. To think otherwise is asinine.

That does not change the basic fact that our government was formed under or the effective use of the constitution as its governing document. The false allegation of ‘founder worship’ is a complete deflectionary straw man only meant to distract from a point that you cannot debate – try again.

One of the best things about the constitution is the simple fact that it can be changed and updated precisely because the founders could not dream of setting up the ‘perfect’ government or even one that endures for any length of time. To correct errors and ‘update’ the constitution you simply have to create another amendment to change the original document.

However they made changing it VERY difficult and on purpose. Since that is the case, we have lawmakers that make law in an attempt to usurp the Amendment process and effectively render the Constitution worthless. THAT is the Statist goal for control. It is up to US to call them on it.

 

[Victory67]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

which guns have been banned by the Federal govt?

 

[The T]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

which guns have been banned by the Federal govt?

And WHY? And did they have the RIGHT to do so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

which guns have been banned by the Federal govt?

Sawed off shotguns, short barrel rifles are all illegal or rather I know it is illegal to cross State lines with them. Some States have the supposed assault rifle bans. And we had a federal Assault weapon ban from 94 to recently.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.
Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

which guns have been banned by the Federal govt?

You did not answer the question. Please do try.

 

[Victory67]

Sawed off shotguns, short barrel rifles are all illegal or rather I know it is illegal to cross State lines with them. Some States have the supposed assault rifle bans. And we had a federal Assault weapon ban from 94 to recently.

You can't buy a sawed-off shotgun from any manufacturer. You have to modify it yourself.

The AWB expired 10 years ago.