Reid determined to have vote on gun control measures, even if Republicans filibuster

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

And you register your guns than what?

They are going to pass a law requiring everyone to turn in their guns?

Oh wait, they are going to go door to door and take your weapons. Well considering there are probably anywhere from 4-10 million households with guns in them just how long do you think that will actually take?

10, 20, 30 years maybe?

I for one do not consider that a very effective way to remove guns from the populace....do you?

So say you don't wanna, well perhaps if little jimmy reports you to the police, he will get a reward.. Oh are you hungry? turn in your guns, and we'll give you food.. the list can go on..

Confiscation doesn't necessarily mean door to door actions, like I said, they can provide incentives for guns, therefore people turning them in for their incentive. It would be a "soft confiscation" for a lack of better terms.

Which will not get the majority of guns out of society in the long run. Most people purchase guns because they want them so once again, what makes you think they want to come after your guns?

Its not even possible in the short term. Maybe they have an ideological view that guns are bad and want to start directing us down that path but it will be decades before even a dent is made, and that's if every single Congress and President from here on out has a desire to implement gun control.

That is highly doubtful.

That still doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against infringement today, so we can still be free tomorrow. And if congress/president is ultimately controlled by the same interests, it may get worse, so who knows honestly... Right now is still important.

Oh I absolutely agree with you.

I hate the push by the gun-grabbers and we should stand up to them, I was only arguing the constitutionality of it.

The constitution is much like the rules to any game. Think of them as rules to a board game. In a board game you cannot do something unless the rules explicitly state that you can. If the constitution doesn't mention anything about the regulation of firearms, then it explicitly means the US government cannot regulate them.

So many people are also ignorant as to what constitutes arms versus ordinance. There is a categorical and legal difference.

Arms: Anything man portable that constitutes a personal weapon. Knives, swords, clubs, rifles, hammers, shovels, pistols, shotguns, spears, bows and arrows, and so on... anything that can be used as a personal weapon.

Ordinance: Anything larger than man portable, may be crew served requiring more than one operator, or including explosives. Tanks, fighters, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, artillery, and so on.

There is a category that overlaps the two. It is called a destructive device. They are expensive and require an in-depth background check by the FBI and ATF which usually takes 6 months or more and requires you to give up your right to search and seizure for the duration that you own a "destructive device". Some grenade launchers fall into this category and some very specific shotguns do too. Each individual round fired or used by these destructive devices requires their own tax stamp and background check. By law it they are considered NFA Title 2 weapons. Fully automatic weapons are treated exactly the same way. They are extremely expensive, require an extensive background check and waiting period, and temporarily relieve a person of specific rights by owning one.

The DOJ and census bureau estimate that there are roughly 800,000 violent crimes deterred by the presentation (not firing) of a legally owned handgun by private citizens a year. That's more than 1.5 per minute. Violent crime is: Murder, Rape, non-negligent manslaughter, assault, and robbery. And that number only includes incidents where police were called to report the incident.

reply to post by neo96


It means exactly what it says.

Any rights granted in the Constitution may not be infringed upon basically.

And as I said, nothing in the Constitution says that Congress cannot regulate your firearms.

Originally posted by Galvatron
The constitution is much like the rules to any game. Think of them as rules to a board game. In a board game you cannot do something unless the rules explicitly state that you can. If the constitution doesn't mention anything about the regulation of firearms, then it explicitly means the US government cannot regulate them.

So many people are also ignorant as to what constitutes arms versus ordinance. There is a categorical and legal difference.

Arms: Anything man portable that constitutes a personal weapon. Knives, swords, clubs, rifles, hammers, shovels, pistols, shotguns, spears, bows and arrows, and so on... anything that can be used as a personal weapon.

Ordinance: Anything larger than man portable, may be crew served requiring more than one operator, or including explosives. Tanks, fighters, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, artillery, and so on.

There is a category that overlaps the two. It is called a destructive device. They are expensive and require an in-depth background check by the FBI and ATF which usually takes 6 months or more and requires you to give up your right to search and seizure for the duration that you own a "destructive device". Some grenade launchers fall into this category and some very specific shotguns do too. Each individual round fired or used by these destructive devices requires their own tax stamp and background check.

The DOJ and census bureau estimate that there are roughly 800,000 violent crimes deterred by the presentation (not firing) of a legally owned handgun by private citizens a year. That's more than 1.5 per minute. Violent crime is: Murder, Rape, non-negligent manslaughter, assault, and robbery. And that number only includes incidents where police were called to report the incident.

Except for that little thing called "implied powers" which includes anything that helps Congress to accomplish their enumerated powers.

And don't forget the "general welfare" clause which is so broad it can basically include anything the Congress wants and has been upheld countless times by the Supreme Court.

Sorry but you lose on your game analogy.

Exactly, so they cannot. It has to explicitly state that congress can for it to be considered "constitutional". Get it? It doesn't, so congress can't.

I'd like to see some citation. I'm fairly well versed in the powers of congress and I would like to know where exactly they have breached the constitution with their implied powers and it been upheld.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

So because it doesn't specify which arms can be retained as a right that automatically means that congress has the power to regulate our right to arms? Interesting argument..I challenge you to provide evidence for this authority within the text of the constitution itself.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

The 9th and 10th Amendments restrict congress from denying rights the people retain for themselves. Which defeats the logic of your previous argument

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because we have a right to arms does not mean congress can regulate which arms we choose to retain. Nor which speech we may use.

10th
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.

This means that any authority not granted by the constitution to the federal government is the realm of the states and the people. This further restricts government from doing anything that may violate the constitution.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

Congress, along with the president, have used their power to subvert the Constitution and violate our rights in the name of some false sense of security they cannot and will not provide.

reply to post by Hopechest


You miss the point, once this crap with hidden agendas get into positions of power, is not about our rights or what is the need of the nation, is about what they can do to destroy what we the citizens hold dear.

It has take decades for people with agendas in specific groups to prop their candidates, every interest group in the nation has themselves a whore in congress to do their wish.

That is the danger that we are dealing with, as citizens when those we elect in congress to pass laws to favor the citizens turns again the citizens.

Is nothing to be debated about gun control because is not about safety and neither how to deal with criminals is about getting as much control of the entire population in the nation and usually the ones that will be easily controlled are the ones that abide by laws, criminals still will get what they want with laws or not laws.

Get the point, this is more than just gun control it has been for a long time.

Originally posted by Galvatron
Exactly, so they cannot. It has to explicitly state that congress can for it to be considered "constitutional". Get it? It doesn't, so congress can't.

I'd like to see some citation. I'm fairly well versed in the powers of congress and I would like to know where exactly they have breached the constitution with their implied powers and it been upheld.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)

They haven't because using implied powers is not a breach of the Constitution according to the Supreme Court. Therefore the Congress is not only limited to the enumerated powers outlined in Article 1 Section 8.

reply to post by Hopechest

Any rights granted in the Constitution may not be infringed upon basically.

So which way is it?

And as I said, nothing in the Constitution says that Congress cannot regulate your firearms.

Can't get any more contradictory.

Because implied powers are there only to help the congress use the powers explicitly stated in the constitution. It can't use the implied powers to contradict the constitution.

Think of it like Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics.

reply to post by projectvxn


It is sad to see how people still believe that what is going on in our nation of the US today with the type of groups that are behind the government, they think that is still for the people and by the people.

Is only one reason we got the government we got today and that is to keep eroding as much as they can the constitution that keeps the government from becoming tyrants.

Oh, but they are trying so hard to erode citizens rights in the name of safety and for the good of the nation and the littler children.

So because it doesn't specify which arms can be retained as a right that automatically means that congress has the power to regulate our right to arms? Interesting argument..I challenge you to provide evidence for this authority within the text of the constitution itself.

The evidence is the Constitution itself. The second amendment does not say the people have the right to bear any and all arms they choose. It leaves it open which means Congress can regulate which arms are included, it can pass a law to make all weapons pink or to put cute bunny rabbits on all shotguns.

Unless the Constitution limits Congress or Congress violates the rules of the Constitution, or another branch in some way, they are free to pass any law on it they want.

The 9th and 10th Amendments restrict congress from denying rights the people retain for themselves. Which defeats the logic of your previous argument

The 9th amendment does not apply because Congress is not violating the Constitution in any way. This is per the Supreme Court.

The 10th does not apply because the Supremecy clause overrules it in this case. All states and the people therin are subject to federal law which is the "supreme law of the land." Therefore if Congress passes a law, all people and States must abide by it.

This means that any authority not granted by the constitution to the federal government is the realm of the states and the people. This further restricts government from doing anything that may violate the constitution.

You are correct. But passing a law on gun regulation is an authority the Congress has because they are not prohibited from doing so by the Constitution. Therefore when they pass a law on gun control it falls under the Supremecy clause.

People throw around the 10th amendment as if its some sort of saving grace but for all intents and purposes the 10th amendment is all but null and void due to various Supreme Court rulings. Basically, if the Court allows Congress to pass a law, it trumps the 10th and the Court very rarely strikes down a law passed by Congress.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Any rights granted in the Constitution may not be infringed upon basically.

So which way is it?

And as I said, nothing in the Constitution says that Congress cannot regulate your firearms.

Can't get any more contradictory.

With all due respect, what is contradictory? Yes you cannot infringe on any rights in the Constitution but gun regulation isn't prohibited in the Constitution. The second amendment does not say that Congress cannot regulate guns so they are not infinging on anything.

It would only be an infringement if they said you cannot own ANY weapons.

reply to post by Hopechest


Regulation is infringement

I hear ya, Marg.

What bothers me the most is the lack of critical thinking by the general populace on this subject (the authority of the constitution) and the prevalence of emotional knee-jerk reactions that not just try to ignore the facts surrounding a situation, but refute them with opinion.

Firearms have never been subject to more laws, importation restrictions, criminalizing statutes, background checks, and other forms of oversight. National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun control act of 1968, FOPA of 1986. Yet the impact of these laws on crimes, violent or otherwise, committed with a firearm has been of such statistically small influence that the DOJ publicly says there's no correlation between the implementation and enforcement of these laws and the rate of crime involving firearms, violent or otherwise.

Originally posted by Galvatron
Because implied powers are there only to help the congress use the powers explicitly stated in the constitution. It can't use the implied powers to contradict the constitution.

Think of it like Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics.

Haha, I would agree with you but you know what?

Congress can almost always find some sort of justification in their enumerated powers to qualify any law they make.

Basically if the Congress can come up with even the weakest of arguments the Supreme Court usually sides with them. There are literally dozens of examples of this throughout the Courts history, especially in regards to the Commerce Clause.

I don't agree with it and would like to see it tightened up but that unfortunately is the way it is.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Regulation is infringement

reply to post by Hopechest


I think primarily that you are misinterpreting the text of the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment is about the rights that are NOT enumerated in the constitution. For instance the congress cannot tell the people which side they must lay on when they sleep. As silly as that sounds, it is the very core of the 9th amendment.

Conversely the government cannot violate rights the people retain for themselves insofar as what arms and speech we choose to use.

Congress does not have a blank check on legislation. You probably think the General Welfare Clause is a blank check. It is not. Perhaps a little research on the Necessary and Proper clause would illuminate the issue for you.

The 2nd Amendment is open for the people, not for the government to do what it pleases.

reply to post by Hopechest

Show me that part in the Constitution and I will agree with you. Is regulation preventing you from owning a firearm?

Yes since I can not legally buy a gun unless I get a permission slip from government not legally allowed.

Then there is what type of gun I am "legally" allowed to own full auto? think I am going to pay 5 to 10 grand for one, and wait months for another permission slip?

Then there is silencer,suppressors, that are not guns, but still have to wait months before I get to take one home.

There is that power to regulate which is nothing, but a bunch of stupidty meanwhile criminals can go buy that stuff out of a trunk of a car.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Regulation is infringement