Americans And Their Guns

Congress can also alter the jurisidction of the Supreme Court. You essentially affirm that the Supreme Court cannot rule on matters dealing with reserved powers. You may be able to overturn decision in pivotal cases such as McDonald v. Chicago.

 

Alter the jurisdiction to not include what? The 14th Amendment?

Look at your argument. You're using the 10th Amendment to argue against the 14th. Text of the Tenth:

"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."​

As soon as the 14th Amendment was ratified by the states and became part of the Constitution then these clauses became just as valid as any other clause contained in the Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"​

~and~

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."​

The power has been "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" so it is no longer a reserved power.

 

The key word is "Congress." The Supreme Court does not have the right to enforce the 14th amendment. Therefore, its jurisdiction over matters of gun control, and every other reserved power is illegitimate, and can be altered.

 

Of course the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to enforce the 14th Amendment. That is the Executive branch's job, and it isn't a "right" at all but a duty. The Congress can only pass legislation that dictates how the provisions are to be enforced. The SCOTUS merely makes rulings on cases concerning points of law...points such as the 14th Amendment.

I find it absurd that you are trying to convince me that the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to rule on cases concerning free speech, free press, free religion, and the right to keep and bear arms. Tell me, if I feel that the government, state or other, is infringing on my right to speech or my right to arms or any one of the other "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", then exactly who would you have adjudicate that case? Am I just out of luck?

I mean, you can disagree with the incorporation doctrine and the rulings that followed but your jurisdiction argument seems silly to me, no offense intended.

 

Yes, in eurotard world guns are apparently only used to kill people. But, here guns have other functions as well.

If you're to afraid or too incompetent to own a fire arm, that's you're prerogative.
But, do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself with pitiful arguments that boil down too fear mongering and stupidity.

 

I love this post. Golly, right. I used my guns to drive nails, flip hot cakes, and discipline the children. They make a great paperweight and hold you book open to the right page in restaurants.

My biggest problem with handguns is the weak, frightened little people who think the gun will make them strong and brave. They don't but we end up with a bunch of weak, frightened little people who are armed.

I not only owned guns but wore one for thirty years. Then I retired and got rid of my guns. I didn't see any reason to keep one. I have a hammer for driving nails and a spatula for flipping hot cakes.

 

Civilized people don't own guns. Visit civilisation and learn something, child. You are so silly.

 

I take it from your response that you've never handled a gun. That's okay. Some people shouldn't. My wife is one so she carries a taser.

 

In a civilized society, cats don't have claws.

 

Our founding fathers who gave us our gun laws via the Constitution would be mighty proud to see those photos displayed at a time when socialism, multiculturalism and illegal immigration into sanctuary cities nationwide are threatening our traditions and Constitutional rights daily. You may have noticed that the people in those photos are all smiling--unlike the frowning libs that are so set on annulling our gun laws. Merry Christmas!!!!

 

The SCOTUS ruled otherwise almost two years ago.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf


(p.44-45)

 

Who told you about civilization? You are so silly.

 

Guns help to protect civilized people from the ruthless, uncivilized people who have no inhibitions about using violence to exert their will upon you.

 

LOL And we have a victim.

Sorry junior, most of us would rather not be weak or dependent upon others.

 

The Unarmed are real swingers

 

I like the comment about 'civilized people'. Human nature hasn't changed in the last 100 years. If anything the welfare state is causing us to devolve as evolution only favors reproduction and reproduction anymore is inversely proportional to affluence.

Heck, Japan's reproductive rate is so low as to be a major concern. I think it's at something like 1.3 when a reproductive rate of about 2.1 is needed to maintain a population. Western nations are largely lower than the replacement rate. The US is just above it, but much of that is driven by impoverished immigrants. As a bonus I guess, the liberal elite on the coasts will go extinct =p.

 

I feel I now must ask you this: are you on drugs?

 

Lived in it for years, kid. Mind you, it's wonderful how well you write English. I expect they'll soon shoot you.

 

No - talking to pissartists keeps me so happy I don't need 'em!

 

I expect that means something in your language. But what? You mean you are playing cowboys with the neighbour children until your masters stop you? Silly child!

 

I think the weirdoes should go back to witch-hunting. It makes much more sense than their pop-gun obsession.

 

You need to cut way back on the drugs.

 

You did that one a while back, surely? Go shoot up a school or something: be a useful American!

 

Which is an argument for more guns. If one of those victims had a gun, they could have stopped the guy.