 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Repeal the 2nd Amendment..... |
Resident Skeptic |
The repeal of the Second Amendment would not grant the Federal Government any new powers to regulate guns. It would simply mean the States have total control over the issue.
Funny how the courts don't seem to object to the restrictive gun laws many "liberal" areas implement. So if the States completely took over this issue, things would stay pretty much as they are now.
Therefore I say let's repeal the 2nd Amendment before the SCOTUS can interpret it to mean something it doesn't. If it's not in the Constitution, they can't rule on it, right?
Oh wait, marriage was not in the Constitution either, was it?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/4/15 11:09 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment..... |
c6thplayer1 |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | The repeal of the Second Amendment would not grant the Federal Government any new powers to regulate guns. It would simply mean the States have total control over the issue.
Funny how the courts don't seem to object to the restrictive gun laws many "liberal" areas implement. So if the States completely took over this issue, things would stay pretty much as they are now.
Therefore I say let's repeal the 2nd Amendment before the SCOTUS can interpret it to mean something it doesn't. If it's not in the Constitution, they can't rule on it, right?
Oh wait, marriage was not in the Constitution either, was it? |
I dont want any more politicians to regulate my life or possessions. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
10/4/15 1:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment..... |
Resident Skeptic |
| c6thplayer1 wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | The repeal of the Second Amendment would not grant the Federal Government any new powers to regulate guns. It would simply mean the States have total control over the issue.
Funny how the courts don't seem to object to the restrictive gun laws many "liberal" areas implement. So if the States completely took over this issue, things would stay pretty much as they are now.
Therefore I say let's repeal the 2nd Amendment before the SCOTUS can interpret it to mean something it doesn't. If it's not in the Constitution, they can't rule on it, right?
Oh wait, marriage was not in the Constitution either, was it? |
I dont want any more politicians to regulate my life or possessions. |
Amen.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/4/15 2:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
Two words: Heller and McDonald
The legal position of gun rights is in a very, very good place in the US right now. Those two cases were decided because of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, those jurisdictions would have had, as you said, the right to do as they please concerning firearms. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/4/15 2:42 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | Two words: Heller and McDonald
The legal position of gun rights is in a very, very good place in the US right now. Those two cases were decided because of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, those jurisdictions would have had, as you said, the right to do as they please concerning firearms. |
Here's the problem. Who said the SCOTUS gets to decide? It was not until the 20the century that this magical power appeared allowing Federal Courts to get involved. Even with the addition of the 14th Amendment, it was understood that the 14th Amendment did not effect the 2nd amendment.
If we accept the SCOTUS jurisdiction in the Heller and McDonald cases, then we must also accept they have the Constitutional power to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to actually outlaw private gun ownership.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/4/15 3:36 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment..... |
Cojak |
| c6thplayer1 wrote: | ...
I dont want any more politicians to regulate my life or possessions. |
WHAT HE SAID!
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24284
10/4/15 4:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | Here's the problem. Who said the SCOTUS gets to decide? It was not until the 20the century that this magical power appeared allowing Federal Courts to get involved. Even with the addition of the 14th Amendment, it was understood that the 14th Amendment did not effect the 2nd amendment.
If we accept the SCOTUS jurisdiction in the Heller and McDonald cases, then we must also accept they have the Constitutional power to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to actually outlaw private gun ownership. |
Who else would interpret the meaning of the Constitution? That's the entire purpose of the Supreme Court in Article III Section 2. The Constitution said SCOTUS gets to decide.
Now, to the question of "what if a bunch of liberals get on the bench and begin misinterpreting the plain meaning of the Second Amendment?" Well, then it's time to either deal with it or find a new country to live in, because yours has gotten to a point where basic, obvious, guaranteed liberties are no longer treated as such. The Founders warned you it could happen, but we had a good run in the meantime.
But without the Supreme Court defending the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment would have already been destroyed by the States (well, some of them). Heller and McDonald are tremendous firewalls in the defense for gun liberty. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/4/15 6:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | Here's the problem. Who said the SCOTUS gets to decide? It was not until the 20the century that this magical power appeared allowing Federal Courts to get involved. Even with the addition of the 14th Amendment, it was understood that the 14th Amendment did not effect the 2nd amendment.
If we accept the SCOTUS jurisdiction in the Heller and McDonald cases, then we must also accept they have the Constitutional power to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to actually outlaw private gun ownership. |
Who else would interpret the meaning of the Constitution? That's the entire purpose of the Supreme Court in Article III Section 2. The Constitution said SCOTUS gets to decide.
Now, to the question of "what if a bunch of liberals get on the bench and begin misinterpreting the plain meaning of the Second Amendment?" Well, then it's time to either deal with it or find a new country to live in, because yours has gotten to a point where basic, obvious, guaranteed liberties are no longer treated as such. The Founders warned you it could happen, but we had a good run in the meantime.
But without the Supreme Court defending the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment would have already been destroyed by the States (well, some of them). Heller and McDonald are tremendous firewalls in the defense for gun liberty. |
Look carefully at the limited scope of cases SCOTUS is allowed to hear. It's right there in the Constitution. Also, congress can alter the court anytime it pleases. They just don't.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/4/15 6:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
What Are the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts?
1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 enumerates the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:
a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];
b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of parties” jurisdiction];
c) Between several States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or its Citizens) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects 3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].
These are the ONLY cases federal courts have permission to hear! Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):
…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority. [emphasis added] 4
In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton comments on each of these enumerated objects of federal judicial authority. But here, we will consider only cases “arising under the Constitution”, which, in the words of Hamilton [which I ask you to note most carefully],
…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union (2nd para) [emphasis added]
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/judicial-abuse-of-the-14th-amendment-abortion-sexual-orientation-homosexual-marriage/#G2mysbbhEB8ImvxR.99
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/4/15 6:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Quote: | | a) Arising under the Constitution |
Done. Heller and McDonald were proper cases for the Court to hear because they arose as a result of DC and Chicago unlawfully stripping their citizens of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court advocated those rights and overturned the actions of DC and Chicago/Illinois. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/4/15 6:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Quote: | | a) Arising under the Constitution |
Done. Heller and McDonald were proper cases for the Court to hear because they arose as a result of DC and Chicago unlawfully stripping their citizens of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court advocated those rights and overturned the actions of DC and Chicago/Illinois. |
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/4/15 6:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Heller and McDonald represent jurisprudence that is a little more recent. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/5/15 5:39 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
