Prepaid Phone Card Rates
 From  To   

Remove Text Formatting
Loading...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: Congress is trying to take your rights to bear arms!

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Riversdale, Belize
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by bocojeck View Post
    Nope!!! That is not my point or anything close to it. In fact, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

    My point is simple. When the founding fathers empowered the Supreme Court, they gave them the power to interpret laws and the constitution. The recent ruling from the Supreme Court (a conservative Supreme Court I may add), said your right to gun is NOT absolute. Until they change that that is the law of the land.

    You cant be proud of the founding fathre for giving you the right to bear arms but then moan about the process they devised for that right to be interpreted.

    boco
    Yes, I can moan about the liberal socialist agenda. The Supreme Court can "intrepret" law but not "make" law. One also must keep in mind the US Declarariom of Independence which stated:

    "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"

    And along with that should be considered the the 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights:

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

    The Ninth Amendment sets forth a rule of construction that is to guide one when interpreting the Constitution. It makes the drafter's intent clear that the explanation of certain rights in the body of the Constitution or in the Amendments are not exclusive, but are inclusive only as being illustrative of our rights. Now include the Tenth Amendment into the argument, the principal of individual sovereignty and a limited government of delegated powers is firmly established. Therefore the Ninth Amendment, when interpreted in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, should be read as establishing a rule of construction that demonstrates that the Constitution, as a whole, should be construed to mean that the people retain all powers (i.e. right or authority) not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor delegated to their respective State governments by the several State Constitutions.

    So when Obama and the Socialist Democrats start trying to change the fact that the people have inalienable rights unless specifically restricted by the CONSTITUTION, they would change the entire phenomenon that the USA has lead mankind in the ideas of freedom.

    This, comrade, is a dangerous path.

  2. #17
    bocojeck Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    Yes, I can moan about the liberal socialist agenda. The Supreme Court can "intrepret" law but not "make" law. One also must keep in mind the US Declarariom of Independence which stated:.
    Well you can moan and groan indeed but what I meant is that you cant moan and groan with a legitmate argument that embraces the rights that the founders established but on the same breath criticize the sytem created by the same founders to administer those rights.

    The founders clearly intended the SC to be the ultimate arbitor as to how laws should be interpreted and where the line for state rights should begin and end. So when congress passes a law that infringes on an area that historically has been in the hands of states, the SC gets to decide whether or not the line has been crossed. Thats the way the founders wanted it to be and it makes sense. If the founders did not want it that way, they would have created another body to oversee and review the SC decisions but they didnt.

    Furthermore, if we are forced to interpret laws strictly in accordance with how they have been interpreted historically, our system of govt and laws would become obsolete and ineffective. We do have a system where precedents are importrant but fortunately no precedent is so rigid that they cant be over turned. So the founders gave the SC the right to interpret laws and in doing so inherently gave them the power to determine how far that powers go.

    If you are talking about state rights generally, I would agree that federalism has been expanding compared to where it has been historically. HOwever where you and I differ is that I dont have a problem with it. I think we live in an era where your state citizenship is not as relevant to the average citizen compared to the past. So as we as a people mature to become more focussd on our american citizenship and less on our state citizenship, I dont have a problem with teh law and the interpretaion of those laws evolving to reflect our society and preferences

    boco

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Riversdale, Belize
    Posts
    4,262
    What socialists and communists forget, comrade, is that the Supreme Court is one of THREE branches of our federal government and thier job is too interperut law to be sure some law does not conflict with the constitution or infringe on civil liberties. Over the years the court has gained much more power than the framers intended.

    The court has forgotten that they are "supreme" only as far as we the people allow them.

    This is supreme:

    Amendment II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    If that can be taken away, how about this one?

    Amendment XV

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

  4. #19
    bocojeck Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    What socialists and communists forget, comrade, is that the Supreme Court is one of THREE branches of our federal government and thier job is too interperut law to be sure some law does not conflict with the constitution or infringe on civil liberties. Over the years the court has gained much more power than the framers intended.
    ....and "law" refers not just to statutes created by congress and by states but also the constitution. so the SC is also empowered to interpret the constitution and their interpretation of the constitution is FINAL

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    Over the years the court has gained much more power than the framers intended.
    And what I am saying is the framers intended to give the SC that flexibility. If they wanted a cap on the SC powers, they would have put another body in place to check their decisions BUT THEY DID NOT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    And the framers intended the SC to have the power to interpret what the words "well regulated", "militia" etc means. this is exactly what they have done!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Not to change the discussion but considering you are a strict interpreter of the constitution, considering the provision you cited, do you think its unconstitutional for states to deprive felons from voting? Following your strict interpretation, lunatics, felons and imbeciles should also be allowed to vote.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Riversdale, Belize
    Posts
    4,262
    "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" have nothing to do with lunitics and felons or non citizens for that matter.

  6. #21
    bocojeck Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" have nothing to do with lunitics and felons or non citizens for that matter.
    Exactly!! That is one possible interpretation, and it is the job of the SC to determine who can be denied the right to vote within the limits of this and the 16th amendment.

    Even when the bolded black letter of the law/constittion seems plain and obvious, the SC still has the power and the responsibility to give meaning to it by interpreting it even to the point where some one like you would regard it as law making or judicial activism.


    boco

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Riversdale, Belize
    Posts
    4,262
    Attempts to disarm the citizenry is even more prejudicial against women as they are naturally more vulnerable to a predator.


  8. #23
    bocojeck Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    Attempts to disarm the citizenry is even more prejudicial against women as they are naturally more vulnerable to a predator.

    But the sc reaffirmed the right to bear arms last year by the populace. All they are doing now is putting regulations on it, not trying to disarm citizens.

    Surely even you would agree that lunatics, imbecilles and ex felons shouldnt be able to purchase guns as freely as a normal law abiding person?? So there needs to be regulations.

    Its no different, than the other examples of "interpretations" of the constitutions we we discussed earlier.

    boco

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Riversdale, Belize
    Posts
    4,262
    There are already laws and regulations restricting where, when, and who can purchase or carry a firearm. No one said it was "unlimited." The point is BO is trying to make it so restrictive that only outlaws will have guns.

    Obama Gun Control - Lightning Assault on Freedom and Gun Owners
    Obama and Cohorts Didn't Waste Any Time Restricting Americans' Freedoms

    By Russ Chastain, About.com


    Mar 18 2009
    Obama and gun control. Sadly, they seem to go together like peas in a pod.

    Under the Obama administration, gun control has already proven to be right at the top of the agenda. That was made quite clear when his new Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced their intention to permanently reinstate the so-called "assault" weapons ban that expired in 2004. And that is certainly not the first indication of Obama's anti-gun stance. He has a record of opposing our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Is anyone surprised? They shouldn't be. Obama's anti-gun history is well-known.

    During his campaign, Obama told voters, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." He was apparently lying. At a news conference he stated that "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear... I think people can take me at my word."

    I really don't think we can. Remember, this is the same man who felt the Washington, DC, handgun ban was Constitutional, before that ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. After that, in June 2008, he said the handgun ban "went beyond Constitutional limits." He also denied having ever said the handgun ban was Constitutional, although previously in February 2008 he had agreed - on video - that he had said that. Not only has he been evasive, he apparently has come down on the side of this issue which infringes our rights.

  10. #25
    bocojeck Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Buzzard View Post
    There are already laws and regulations restricting where, when, and who can purchase or carry a firearm. No one said it was "unlimited." .
    Well if you agree that the 2nd amendment does not provide an unlimited right, then you shouldnt have a problem with limits being placed on the TYPE of gun you are entitled to. So in addition to the "where", "when" and "who" just add "what".

    I mean come on there has to be a line. if there are no limits someone may and will argue that they are entitled to have a shoulder rocket propelled amunition. Surely the founders did not intend nor envisioned anyone owning Ak47s.

    Finally, assuming you are genunely concerned about women and honest people not being able to protect themselves, why would they need assualt weapons and ak47s to protect themselves??

    boco

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Riversdale, Belize
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by bocojeck View Post
    Well if you agree that the 2nd amendment does not provide an unlimited right, then you shouldnt have a problem with limits being placed on the TYPE of gun you are entitled to. So in addition to the "where", "when" and "who" just add "what".

    I mean come on there has to be a line. if there are no limits someone may and will argue that they are entitled to have a shoulder rocket propelled amunition. Surely the founders did not intend nor envisioned anyone owning Ak47s.

    Finally, assuming you are genunely concerned about women and honest people not being able to protect themselves, why would they need assualt weapons and ak47s to protect themselves??

    boco

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts