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.
Exactly. All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in Heller. He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked). It was gutless, yet here we are.Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license. The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution. State constitutions are no different.the FedGov has no authority?
This says the same thing by equivalency:Article 1, § 23 of the Texas Constitution:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification. FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!! The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.
EXACTLY!!!This says the same thing by equivalency:Article 1, § 23 of the Texas Constitution:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification. FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!! The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?Exactly. All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in Heller. He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked). It was gutless, yet here we are.Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license. The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution. State constitutions are no different.the FedGov has no authority?
Not at all. The general government of the Union has the delegated authority to fix Standards for the Union.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
So, this begs the question AGAIN.You understand even less.You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary. The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.
But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.
There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.
Not at all. Congress is delegated the authority to fix Standards for the Union.EXACTLY!!!This says the same thing by equivalency:Article 1, § 23 of the Texas Constitution:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification. FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!! The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Which excludes Federal authority within the states.
All fed gun laws NOT pertaining to DC or the territories are unconstitutional, right?
Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
No.
Yes.So, this begs the question AGAIN.You understand even less.You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary. The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.
But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.
There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.
Does the federal government have authority to regulate individual gun possession, ownership, etc. within the states?
You can't have it both ways, Dan.
So, DC and the territories? Not Texas, rightYes.So, this begs the question AGAIN.You understand even less.You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary. The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.
But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.
There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.
Does the federal government have authority to regulate individual gun possession, ownership, etc. within the states?
You can't have it both ways, Dan.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And
Our First Amendment has no, prefatory, Intent and Purpose clause like our Second Amendment. Context matters or you only have a fallacy of composition.There are no individual terms in the 1st Amendment, therefore it's not an individual right. That is your standard, correct?Where does it say that in the "prefatory clause"?Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?
10AShow us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
No.
You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.So, DC and the territories? Not Texas, right
That amendment supports my argument more than yours.10AShow us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
No.
although the second amendment is called an amendment, it does not amend anything because it was ratified along with the rest of the constitution. This is something that you probably are not aware of because you're not a US citizen.You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.So, DC and the territories? Not Texas, right
This is what it amends:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
and again, there are no individual or singular terms in any of the Bill of Rights.That amendment supports my argument more than yours.10AShow us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
No.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment, literally.
The Bill of Rights was an anti-federalist thing. And, our Second Amendment would Have to be a Constitution unto itself instead of merely, not even the First, but the Second, Article of Amendment. Our First Amendment is first not second for a reason.although the second amendment is called an amendment, it does not amend anything because it was ratified along with the rest of the constitution. This is something that you probably are not aware of because you're not a US citizen.You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.So, DC and the territories? Not Texas, right
This is what it amends:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Have you read the Federalist papers regarding the justification for the first 10 amendments or the "bill of rights?"
The difference is in the context. This is the Intent and Purpose for our Second Article of Amendment:and again, there are no individual or singular terms in any of the Bill of Rights.
You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
No right to free speech or religion.
Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument. Because it is bullshit.
And forget about that pesky 9A. It doesn't mean what it says. Right, Dan?
>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.
