Gun control runs into 2nd amendment problems
| Vibrant University New Version | 02/19/18 | | sepia tank philosopher-king | 02/19/18 | | Vibrant University New Version | 02/19/18 | | talking vigorous shitlib yarmulke | 02/19/18 | | curious immigrant | 02/19/18 | | talking vigorous shitlib yarmulke | 02/19/18 | | sepia tank philosopher-king | 02/19/18 | | black pontificating national puppy | 02/19/18 | | fiercely-loyal forum | 02/19/18 | | outnumbered chrome gas station | 02/19/18 | | Electric narrow-minded cuck nursing home | 02/19/18 | | frisky insane twinkling uncleanness | 02/19/18 | | Vibrant University New Version | 02/19/18 | | talking vigorous shitlib yarmulke | 02/19/18 | | Stirring hell genital piercing | 02/19/18 | | Vibrant University New Version | 02/19/18 | | Claret striped hyena piazza | 02/19/18 | | Dashing alcoholic tanning salon | 02/19/18 | | tripping mental disorder step-uncle's house | 02/19/18 | | black pontificating national puppy | 02/19/18 | | concupiscible fuchsia wrinkle newt | 02/19/18 | | concupiscible fuchsia wrinkle newt | 02/19/18 | | Vibrant University New Version | 02/19/18 | | concupiscible fuchsia wrinkle newt | 02/19/18 | | Vibrant University New Version | 02/19/18 | | concupiscible fuchsia wrinkle newt | 02/19/18 | | Vibrant University New Version | 02/19/18 | | dull clown | 02/19/18 | | concupiscible fuchsia wrinkle newt | 02/19/18 | | Stirring hell genital piercing | 02/19/18 | | concupiscible fuchsia wrinkle newt | 02/19/18 | | Appetizing indecent crackhouse corn cake | 02/19/18 | | curious immigrant | 02/19/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:42 PM Author: Vibrant University New Version
If the Bill of Rights could be considered a sweetener to incentivize the states to ratify the Constitution in the 1780s, then there is a problem with outlawing semi-automatic weapons. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms was all about empowering the states against an oppressive central government, by giving individuals in the states the power to rise up against a standing army formed by the federal gov't. It wasn't about individuals having a right to guns to defend their personal property from thieves.
So when advocating for gun control, one would be well advised to address the question how can individuals rise up at the state level to fight against federal oppression if the standing army has access to automatic, semi-automatic, grenades, killer drones, etc.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438759) |
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:50 PM Author: Stirring hell genital piercing
when was the last time someone used a 30-round magazine for any of the following:
1. Fighting off the government
2. Self defense
3. Hunting
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438805) |
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:06 PM Author: concupiscible fuchsia wrinkle newt
Is this a law board? Come on. How about this:
The bill of rights was not intended to be a restriction against what the states could do, only a restriction that applied to the federal government. For instance, in the late 1700's, some states had official "Church of [Virginia]s" that were established by the states, and that did not run afoul of the US Constitution establishment clause (the churches didn't last because they were a bad idea).
When the bill of rights was incorporated to apply to state governments after the 14th amendment, it was done incrementally and unevenly. Some amendments, like the 3rd amendment, were never formally incorporated to be a restriction on state action.
When the 2nd amendment was written, it only forbid the federal government from banning arms. This made sense, as it would be an obvious act of tyranny and overreach for the federal government in DC to take away the privately owned guns in South Carolina. However, the inverse is not true.
The 2nd amendment was not intended, at the time it was written, to be any sort of restriction against state governments from regulating gun ownership. It was assumed that state governments could do as they please on the issue.
Thus, it is a bastardized reading of the 2nd amendment to say that states can't ban whatever firearm they wish. The real argument here is the 14th amendment and the incorporation of the 2nd amendment against states, which if you believe that we are a nation of free peoples expressing our will through our states, it is a insult to the principles of freedom and the American Revolution that Florida can't ban AR-15's.
Conclusion: if the confederacy had won, Florida would be free to ban AR-15's without some distant tyrannical federal government using military force to prevent them from doing so. THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438929) |
|
|