that is a complete bastardization of the second amendment but can you tell us where the federal government was properly delegated any authority whatsoever to regulate the arms of private citizens?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 Looks like you are still having memory problems. The good news is that you need not strain your memory further. Because whether they can or can't is absolutely irrelevant to this thread.
you have been edified several times that clause 18 (To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.) is not a grant that has anything to do with gun control since gun control is not a power vested in any governmental office of the federal government/ Yet you persist on demonstrating that you have no education in constitutional law nor any desire to actually accurately state what that clause holds
Neither are cars, or airplanes, or drugs, or ... immigrants... And yet, they do. Anyway.... your argument is absurd. But it's off-topic. And, as I said before: if you don't have anything to counter my arguments about the topic, my case is made.
not relevant. immigration is clearly a power that the federal government was given jurisdiction over. and I oppose the federal war on drugs though Congress certainly has the power to impose tariffs on imported narcotics. You don't make any arguments. You start with the premise that guns should be banned and then dishonestly twist the second amendment (while ignoring the rest of the constitution) and pretend the mutated mess you have voided all over this board, supports your desires to ban guns. No one is buying it. It's completely mendacious bullshit
he appears to have been mastered by his own mythology-in other words, he believes his own bullshit when no one else does
Quote from the Constitution where the power to regulate immigration by deporting foreigners is vested in the Federal Government. You won't, and that is the end of your attempt to derail this thread. Thanks for playing!
not relevant-this is a discussion about your completely inaccurate "understanding" about the second amendment. I don't see anything in the bill of rights about immigrants having any rights not to be deported. that is actually an area where your beloved Clause 18 actually comes into play.
You need to file a supreme Court case. If you know better than everyone else and the entirety of the history of the US about what the Constitution says you need to go educate the supreme Court. Beyond what I just said there there is nothing left to talk about on this subject with you at all.
Did you read the op? It's utter madness this guy thinks he knows more than all of the supreme Court and constitutional framers throughout all time. The dude thinks he's a god. Read post 837 that's all there is to say to this guy on the subject. He needs to take his case to the supreme Court if they'll have them. Maybe they're all just too stupid for him.
All I have are scientific facts and this Supreme Court has no interest whatsoever in facts. Their only interest is to pass as much legislation as they can until a sensible President realizes that this country will be stuck until they add more independent justices.
it is hilarious. I have lectured on the second amendment at several major league law schools. the stuff he posts is wishful nonsense
Oh Dear God! There IS a crisis in education in this country! You lecture on the second amendment and don't provide students with the linguistic and historical aspects required to understand its origins allowing them to come to their own conclusions? I have lectured in universities on many topics. Not the 2nd A, but other controversial topics. Whenever it's controversial, I ALWAYS provide both sides of the story. Even though I explain my reasons for favoring one, I encourage students to figure out on their own which one makes more sense. Clearly you don't. I think this is the scariest post I have read all year! It illustrates the difference between teaching and indoctrinating.
we discuss the context of when the bill of rights was drafted and the numerous comments of the founders. From that, it was obvious that the founders did not intend for any form of gun control to be a power that the NEW government was going to be given. You seem to ignore the fact that the several states were seen as sovereign governments that would retain every power other than those that the several states delegated to the new government. Arms control was not such a power. That is obvious
That's the scary part. How would you address them if you deny them? You have responded several times to my thread titled "History 101:..." and have not quoted ANY comment that contradicts anything that I mention on the OP. The topic is History, and not law. But if you claim you use it in your instruction, then it needs to be accurate AND complete. The fact that you don't mention Article 1, Section 8 makes it even scarier. Or, at least, very very limited. I'm fairly sure you probably mention it, and discard it off handedly promising students a big fat F if they "dare" contradict your pre-conceived notion that, though it applies to everything else, it doesn't apply to guns. Speaking as a higher education professor myself (irrespective of the legal arguments), I see deficiencies in your pedagogical strategy. The job of a teacher in higher education is very different from one in High School. It's not to "instruct". That's what books do. It's to educate. And to do that properly, it needs to be absolutely clear to students that, on controversial matters, even though we might submit to them our opinion and reasons for holding it, it's their responsibility to consider all points of view and come to their own conclusions. Not to question reality, but DO question opinions. And the biggest responsibility is to know the difference. That's the difference between teaching and indoctrinating. And there are ample arguments that suggest that "keep and bear arms" does NOT refer in any way (neither to deny nor affirm) owning guns. Not just the linguistic arguments in this thread (and the next that starts with "English 102..."), but also Historical arguments ("History 101...", "History 102..."). And that the framers had no intention to address the matter of owning or not owning guns any more than they addressed the matter of owning or not owning a house. And that, just like there are federal regulations that limit the "where", the "how" and other characteristics of a house you build; there can certainly also be similar restriction about guns.
I have mentioned that section dozens of times on this thread and your related bullshit thread. so stop the nonsense YOU CANNOT DENY that the founders absolutely did not give the federal government any authority over private citizens' use, possession, acquirement or ownership of firearms. PERIOD
That's what I said. You mention it and discard it off handedly because, even though you probably think it applies to anything else (ownership and operation of cars, a house, a business...), your dogma doesn't allow you to apply it to guns. Despite the fact that you can't say why. I'm sure that's what you teach your students. And, as I said, that's not teaching. That's indoctrination.
your entire posting history on this forum concerning guns is factually deficient ideological haranguing about how much you hate gun ownership. Tell us-WHERE WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DELEGATED any power to regulate, restrict, or otherwise interfere with the use, possession, ownership, carrying, bearing, collecting, cleaning, modifying, repairing, or even "hugging" firearms by private citizens?
