Gun control runs into 2nd amendment problems
| Brass confused cuck site | 02/19/18 | | Irradiated know-it-all nursing home | 02/19/18 | | Brass confused cuck site | 02/19/18 | | Slap-happy unhinged party of the first part | 02/19/18 | | floppy garrison mexican | 02/19/18 | | Slap-happy unhinged party of the first part | 02/19/18 | | Irradiated know-it-all nursing home | 02/19/18 | | Talented bull headed meetinghouse scourge upon the earth | 02/19/18 | | Glittery Misunderstood Tank | 02/19/18 | | Nudist church building jewess | 02/19/18 | | lavender exciting pozpig | 02/19/18 | | Slate Clown Parlor | 02/19/18 | | Brass confused cuck site | 02/19/18 | | Slap-happy unhinged party of the first part | 02/19/18 | | comical orchid ape | 02/19/18 | | Brass confused cuck site | 02/19/18 | | Provocative cyan gay wizard | 02/19/18 | | titillating home | 02/19/18 | | boyish roast beef base | 02/19/18 | | Talented bull headed meetinghouse scourge upon the earth | 02/19/18 | | Deep People Who Are Hurt | 02/19/18 | | Deep People Who Are Hurt | 02/19/18 | | Brass confused cuck site | 02/19/18 | | Deep People Who Are Hurt | 02/19/18 | | Brass confused cuck site | 02/19/18 | | Deep People Who Are Hurt | 02/19/18 | | Brass confused cuck site | 02/19/18 | | galvanic indian lodge factory reset button | 02/19/18 | | Deep People Who Are Hurt | 02/19/18 | | comical orchid ape | 02/19/18 | | Deep People Who Are Hurt | 02/19/18 | | Cowardly state | 02/19/18 | | floppy garrison mexican | 02/19/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:42 PM Author: Brass confused cuck site
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: comical orchid ape
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: Deep People Who Are Hurt
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) |
|
|