Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Era Might]

By the way, I read the president's 23 recommendations today about gun control. Some I found potentially helpful (it was heavy on background check stuff), some seemed to me on first thought probably useless beauracratic busywork.

[Socrates]

I agree. And I am disappointed that the federal government feels the need to stick its nose in the business of the states.

 

Per the much-neglected Tenth Amendment:  "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."

[Fidei Defensor]

Per the much-neglected Tenth Amendment:  "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."

 

Granted one could argue that "the people" are represented by congress and thus congress has additional power. I don't favor that interpretation, but it could be argued.

[Winchester]

Granted one could argue that "the people" are represented by congress and thus congress has additional power. I don't favor that interpretation, but it could be argued.

 

Then why enumerate powers?

 

I suppose one could argue this. People support "elastic clauses", so any stupidity is possible.

[Socrates]

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.

 

 

Granted one could argue that "the people" are represented by congress and thus congress has additional power. I don't favor that interpretation, but it could be argued.

 

People could "argue" all sorts of asinine and nonsensical things, but such an "interpretation" would remain nonsense.

 

Congress is simply the legislative branch of the United States government, and its powers are clearly enumerated in the Constitution.  "The United States" in the 10th amendment refers to the U.S. federal government, as opposed to state and local governments. This "interpretation" would be self-contradictory as Congress is not a separate entity from the United States government, but part of it.  I honestly have no clue as to what sort of "additional powers" you would be referring to.

[Fidei Defensor]

People could "argue" all sorts of asinine and nonsensical things, but such an "interpretation" would remain nonsense.

 

Congress is simply the legislative branch of the United States government, and its powers are clearly enumerated in the Constitution.  "The United States" in the 10th amendment refers to the U.S. federal government, as opposed to state and local governments. This "interpretation" would be self-contradictory as Congress is not a separate entity from the United States government, but part of it.  I honestly have no clue as to what sort of "additional powers" you would be referring to.

 

If the powers not enumerated are reserved for the people, that could mean the people have the power to delegate these powers as they see fit.  The point of enumerating certain powers is to make them clear. That does not, however, mean that other powers don't exist. Note the 9th amendment, 

 

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

 

  Its not hard to stretch your imagination and imagine that argument that could be made.

[Socrates]

If the powers not enumerated are reserved for the people, that could mean the people have the power to delegate these powers as they see fit.  The point of enumerating certain powers is to make them clear. That does not, however, mean that other powers don't exist. Note the 9th amendment, 

 

 

  Its not hard to stretch your imagination and imagine that argument that could be made.

 

Maybe I lack imagination, but how would "the people" delegate new powers to the government not given in the Constitution, other than by rising up and tossing out the Constitution?  If we're just going to blatantly disregard the delegation and limitation of government powers found in the Constitution, it's pointless to appeal to the Constitution in the first place.  

There is a specific procedure for amending the Constitution, found in Article V of the Constitution, but this is the job of Congress.

 

The tenth amendment clearly says that any powers not delegated to the United States belong to the States, respectively, or the people.   In other words, they are outside the scope of the U.S. federal government, and belong to the state governments, or popular direct vote in the respective states.

 

That "interpretation" would make sense only if you redefine Congress as being somehow separate from the United States government - which is nonsensical.

 

The ninth amendment is irrelevant to this, as it says nothing about powers, but rights.

 

In the Constitution, the United States government has no rights, only powers.

Rights belong only the people and states - which cannot be violated by the federal government.

 

The ninth amendment is designed to protect the rights of the people from the government, not grant new powers to Congress or any other branch of the federal government.

[Winchester]

"`’The initiatives announced by the American  Kill kids using drone attacks administration for limiting and controlling the spread and use of weapons are certainly a step in the right direction,” Lombardi said.

 

The stupid---it burns.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/19/a-step-in-the-right-direction-obamas-gun-control-proposals-get-support-from-the-vatican/

[Fidei Defensor]

Maybe I lack imagination, but how would "the people" delegate new powers to the government not given in the Constitution, other than by rising up and tossing out the Constitution?  If we're just going to blatantly disregard the delegation and limitation of government powers found in the Constitution, it's pointless to appeal to the Constitution in the first place.  

There is a specific procedure for amending the Constitution, found in Article V of the Constitution, but this is the job of Congress.

 

The tenth amendment clearly says that any powers not delegated to the United States belong to the States, respectively, or the people.   In other words, they are outside the scope of the U.S. federal government, and belong to the state governments, or popular direct vote in the respective states.

 

That "interpretation" would make sense only if you redefine Congress as being somehow separate from the United States government - which is nonsensical.

 

The ninth amendment is irrelevant to this, as it says nothing about powers, but rights.

 

In the Constitution, the United States government has no rights, only powers.

Rights belong only the people and states - which cannot be violated by the federal government.

 

The ninth amendment is designed to protect the rights of the people from the government, not grant new powers to Congress or any other branch of the federal government.

 

I never said it was a good argument. But people will stretch words to mean what they want so they can do as they wish.

[Socrates]

I never said it was a good argument. But people will stretch words to mean what they want so they can do as they wish.

 

Very true.

[Deb]

We do not need anymore gun laws. The ones we have are not enforced.  The problem is that our culture has been overcome by the culture of death. You cannot murder 55 million unborn children and maintain any respect for life of any type. We live in a culture that glorifies violence in our movies, books, games, tv shows. Everywhere. This isn't about guns. it is about the decline of humanity. When a society turns away from God, this is what we get.  Our leader is definitely a major proponet of the culture of death. Don't give up your guns. He has only just begun his reign of evil.

[Nihil Obstat]

The ones we have are not enforced. 

Which gun laws are on the books but not enforced?

[StMichael]

Only if you let me know where you got yours.

 

Better pick up the brand name aluminum foil for your hat—can't risk it with that cheap stuff!

 

[StMichael]

The reference to well armed militia was put into the 2nd amendment to allow states to maintain their own armies. At the time, the states were far more powerful than the Federal Government and in no way could the Federal government protect the states from indians, etc. The states cannot declare war, but this amendment gives them the power to have a state army, etc. to protect the state. 

 

The Federal government does not have the power to usurp weapon ownership by the citizenry. So can we own nukes, etc. ? The 2nd amendment would allow it, but this isn't about the want to have a tank or F-16 to match the DOD, this is about simple protection that we have a real right to, as we do not have a right to police protection.

 

In order for the Federal government to do so, it is pretty simple, put up an amendment, as outlined by the law of the land, whereby gun ownership rights are no longer allowed. Once that passes, done. Otherwise, our dear leader and his cohorts are in violation of the Constitution they swore to upheld, but at this point, who is counting from obamacare to spending to no budget to fighting without Congress' approval, we are in a post-Constitutional America.

 

 

I haven't read the thread through very carefully, forgive me in advance, but something really disturbing that keeps popping up in the rhetoric is this idea that an armed citizenry is no match for our government with its nukes and other goodies in its arsenal, and that this idea behind the second amendment is now really irrelevant and frankly, laughable.

 

And I do lol a bit at the idea some ragtag gang of rednecks with machine guns taking on even the most limited warfare that the US forces are capable of, Iament that the world has gotten to this point. The government has way too much power. That's just the reality of the situation, and I think we're cemented into this system until if and when something cataclysmic happens. Then again I tend to be a chicken little sometimes but, I don't know, I'm not a fan of increasingly centralized power. And all I can do is whine on the internet. There are certainly worse injustices in the world, but that doesn't make our losses of liberty OK.

 

blurgh. I'm really tired so that probably was a useless rant.

 

my bizad

 

 

[Fidei Defensor]

Only if you let me know where you got yours.

 

Wal-Mart.