monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@roger,

roger wrote:

Ah, my education continues.

Actually I guess whether the trigger moves depends on your perspective.

The trigger moves relative to the gun.

Relative to the person holding the trigger down I guess the trigger doesn't move.

But since the trigger moves relative to the gun, I guess that's good enough for the BATF.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Please watch it and share your impressions.

First thought. He was lying when he said he didn't try to ban guns. His attempt for an unconstitutional ban on assault weapons was a long bitter fight.

Second thought, when he said he's for allowing responsible people to have guns and only for prohibiting irresponsible people, he and Hillary both meant to include 99% of all Americans in the irresponsible category. No more than 10 Americans would have been considered responsible.

Third thought, every time I hear someone use the term "common sense" they are proposing a civil rights violation.

Final thought, the issue always gets framed as a tyrannical violation of the Second Amendment because what the Democrats propose is invariably a tyrannical violation of the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

I'm not anti-gun, myself, but having automatic military-grade weapons available for purchase is a completely puzzling scenario.

Keep in mind that Americans have an express constitutional right to possess military weapons.

1 Reply

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/donald-trump-gun-control-las-vegas/

Trump: US will 'be talking about gun laws as time goes by'

Quote:

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the US will "be talking about gun laws as time goes by" in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the nation's deadliest in modern history.

"Look, we have a tragedy ... and what happened in Las Vegas is in many ways a miracle. The police department has done such an incredible job," Trump said at the White House before he left for Puerto Rico.

The President was asked about a gun bill currently making its way through the House that would loosen restrictions on purchasing gun silencers. Trump said that he would talk about that later.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Quote:

The President was asked about a gun bill currently making its way through the House that would loosen restrictions on purchasing gun silencers.

Now that's common sense gun legislation.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Builder wrote:
I'm not anti-gun, myself, but having automatic military-grade weapons available for purchase is a completely puzzling scenario.

Keep in mind that Americans have an express constitutional right to possess military weapons.

You also would be totally within your rights to go bowling wearing a goalie mask and a kilt. But, why would you want to?

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

You also would be totally within your rights to go bowling wearing a goalie mask and a kilt. But, why would you want to?

Superior fashion sense of course. Mr. Green

Store owners have used AR-15s to ward off rioters before. I bet they would have found it handy to launch tear gas grenades out of an under-barrel grenade launcher.

0 Replies

@snood,

Snood. Some people here on A2K fail to realize that constitutional rights are not absolute. That includes the Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms, No one has the constitutional right to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. No one has the constitutional right to have human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom. The press doesn't have the constitutional right to access any and all classified information that it wishes to access. Although I am not sure, I don't think everyone has the constitutional right to possess and own bazookas and RPGs. I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution. I do understand that just because certain rights and freedoms are protected by the constitution, doesn't make those rights and freedoms absolute.

2 Replies

Nowhere does the constitution grant the right to keep and bear military-style weapons. That is a distortion of what the constitution actually does say which is consonant with the agenda of gun nuts. The second amendment in its entirety reads:

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.

This would seem to beg the question of what constitutes a well-regulated militia. In fact, the constitution had already outlined the regulation of the militia in Article One, Section Eight. That section lists the powers of Congress, one of which is:

[The Congress shall have power:] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . .

Federal courts and the Supreme Court have referred to this paragraph of Article One, Section Eight when reviewing firearms control legislation. In particular, see The United States versus Miller, 1939, which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Pursuant to their power, the Congress has passed numerous militia acts, and in the Militia Act of 1903 a distinction was made between the organized militia--the National Guard--and the unorganized militia, which is to say, everybody else. The United States Army and the United States Air Force provide training and equipment to the National Guard, and the Air National Guard. Bazookas aren't used any longer, but anti-tank weapons are provided for the National Guard, and the members are trained in their use.

Under the terms of the Militia Act of 1903, there is absolutely no reasons for the unorganized militia to keep and bear anti-tank weapons, because the national defense role of the militia is provided by the organized militia, the National Guard. The constitution does not say that the people may keep and bear military-style weapons, that's gun nut propaganda. The second amendment does not say the people may keep and bear military-style weapons, and it does say that the militia must be well-regulated, a power already granted to Congress by Article One, Section Eight.

What we have is a pack of spineless career politicians who want money to get elected or re-elected--which the NRA might provide in varying amounts--and who know that the NRA might well target them for negative propaganda if they openly espouse gun control legislation. There is no question that Congress has the authority to regulate firearms, the question is whether or not they have the moral courage to do so. For the last several decades, it has been apparent thar they do not.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Although I am not sure, I don't think everyone has the constitutional right to possess and own bazookas and RPGs.

I was thinking more along the lines of M-16s with a grenade launcher attachment. Grenades too though.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Nowhere does the constitution grant the right to keep and bear military-style weapons.

You are correct by accident, but not in the way that you intended.

The Constitution does indeed not grant the right. It merely protects a preexisting right.

However, since that preexisting right is all about infantry weapons, your intended point is quite incorrect.

Setanta wrote:

That is a distortion of what the constitution actually does say which is consonant with the agenda of gun nuts.

No, the only people who distort the meaning of the Constitution are the freedom haters.

Setanta wrote:

The second amendment in its entirety reads:

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.

This would seem to beg the question of what constitutes a well-regulated militia.

The term "well regulated militia" was used to denote a militia that had trained to the extent that they could fight as single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

Setanta wrote:

In fact, the constitution had already outlined the regulation of the militia in Article One, Section Eight. That section lists the powers of Congress, one of which is:

[The Congress shall have power:] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . .

Federal courts and the Supreme Court have referred to this paragraph of Article One, Section Eight when reviewing firearms control legislation.

While it is true that when the courts address the question of the militia, they inevitably touch on everything that the Constitution has to say about the militia, note that they have never used militia discipline as a justification for gun control (which inevitably covers people who are not members of the militia).

Setanta wrote:

Under the terms of the Militia Act of 1903, there is absolutely no reasons for the unorganized militia to keep and bear anti-tank weapons, because the national defense role of the militia is provided by the organized militia, the National Guard.

They don't need a reason. The Founding Fathers foresaw that tyrants would disparage the militia in favor of a standing army. That is the very reason why they directly specified that the preexisting right of the general populace to have infantry weapons was to be protected.

The fact that you are making the very tyrannical argument that the Founding Fathers feared only reinforces the importance of the Second Amendment as a protection of the people's right to military weapons.

Setanta wrote:

The constitution does not say that the people may keep and bear military-style weapons, that's gun nut propaganda.

Freedom haters don't like the truth, but the truth isn't propaganda. The Constitution expressly protects the preexisting right to keep and bear arms. And that preexisting right deals expressly with civilian ownership of infantry weapons.

Setanta wrote:

The second amendment does not say the people may keep and bear military-style weapons,

The Second Amendment protects the preexisting right to keep and bear arms. And that preexisting right deals with civilian ownership of infantry weapons.

Setanta wrote:

and it does say that the militia must be well-regulated, a power already granted to Congress by Article One, Section Eight.

The term "well regulated militia" has nothing to do with Article 1 Section 8. It refers to a militia that has trained sufficiently enough that they can fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of individuals.

Setanta wrote:

There is no question that Congress has the authority to regulate firearms,

Actually it's the opposite. No part of the Constitution grants Congress that power.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

As stated in my previous post just a few minutes ago, constitutional rights are not necessarily absolute. I also provided some examples of why they are not absolute. Obviously congress has the authority, to some extent, to infringe on constitutional rights. The reason congress has the power to do so is for the very reason that these rights are not absolute. So, by default, congress does have the authority to pass gun safety or gun restriction laws. The only thing that would make it unconstitutional is if the laws were to go too far. The Supreme Court can make the determination of what gun safety/gun restriction laws that goes too far and which gun safety/gun restriction laws are deemed okay and reasonable. This applies to other constitutional rights as well as the second amendment. Yes, there are times that I agree with Supreme Court rulings and there are times when I disagree with supreme court rulings. I suspect that you sometimes agree with supreme court rulings and sometimes disagree with supreme court rulings. Often the supreme court justices themselves can't agree with there own ruling. How often have there been 9-0 rulings in modern day history? It seems like most of the ruling are 5-4 one way or the other.

I believe there are gun safety/gun restriction laws that would be reasonable and also constitutional. Some have been proposed over the years and the NRA have always used there influence to prevent those proposal from becoming law. I do believe the various proposals the NRA have been rejecting, would be deemed reasonable and constitutional if passed

2 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

As stated in my previous post just a few minutes ago, constitutional rights are not necessarily absolute. I also provided some examples of why they are not absolute. Obviously congress has the authority, to some extent, to infringe on constitutional rights. The reason congress has the power to do so is for the very reason that these rights are not absolute. So, by default, congress does have the authority to pass gun safety or gun restriction laws. The only thing that would make it unconstitutional is if the laws were to go too far.

Actually Congress is only allowed to pass laws in areas where the Constitution grants it authority to pass laws. No part of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate guns.

Further, a law that undermines the very purpose of a right is clearly going too far.

Real Music wrote:

The Supreme Court can make the determination of what gun safety/gun restriction laws that goes too far and which gun safety/gun restriction laws are deemed okay and reasonable. This applies to other constitutional rights as well as the second amendment. Yes, there are times that I agree with Supreme Court rulings and there are times when I disagree with supreme court rulings. I suspect that you sometimes agree with supreme court rulings and sometimes disagree with supreme court rulings. Often the supreme court justices themselves can't agree with there own ruling. How often have there been 9-0 rulings in modern day history? It seems like most of the ruling are 5-4 one way or the other.

Luckily Trump is likely to appoint more justices to the Supreme Court who care about enforcing the Constitution. Democrats always appoint justices who want to violate the Constitution.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

I believe there are gun safety/gun restriction laws that would be reasonable and also constitutional. Some have been proposed over the years and the NRA have always used there influence to prevent those proposal from becoming law. I do believe the various proposals the NRA have been rejecting, would be deemed reasonable and constitutional if passed

The NRA blocks bans on assault weapons. There is no way a ban on assault weapons could ever be either reasonable or Constitutional.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Actually Congress is only allowed to pass laws in areas where the Constitution grants it authority to pass laws. No part of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate guns.

I disagree with you regarding congress authority to regulate guns. Some authority is explicit and some authority is implied. If what you are stating was correct, that would mean that every single American would have the constitutional right to own RPGs, bazookas, and shoulder held stinger missiles.

I don't believe there is anything in the constitution that grants congress explicit authority to regulate religion. Yet I believe it is implied that congress has the right make laws to ban and disallow human sacrifices in religious practices. Congress also has the implied authority to make laws that ban and disallow people from having multiple spouses, which is used in some religions.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The NRA blocks bans on assault weapons.

The NRA is a lobbying group, not a legislative body. Congress blocks bans on types of weapons, not the NRA.

Quote:

There is no way a ban on assault weapons could ever be either reasonable or Constitutional.

The proposed bans are already reasonable. Either a future Supreme Court could find them constitutional or the Second Amendment could be modified or repealed. The Constitution is not revealed scripture — it was designed to function as part of a political process.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

I disagree with you regarding what authority congress has.

The Framers were very clear that they meant the federal government to have only what authority the Constitution expressly granted it. They also argued that this was the only possible way to interpret the Constitution.

The anti-Federalists did not believe the Framers when they said that no one could interpret the Constitution differently. The anti-Federalists insisted in putting it down in writing. Thus the Tenth Amendment expressly says that anything not expressly granted to the feds is the domain of the states.

Real Music wrote:

Some authority is explicit and some authority is implied.

Implied power helps the government exercise authority in an area where it has been given express power. It doesn't give the government authority in an area where it has no express power to begin with.

Real Music wrote:

If what you are stating was correct, that would mean that every single American would have the constitutional right to own RPGs, bazookas, and shoulder held stinger missiles.

What I state is always correct. However, the boundaries of the right to keep and bear arms are not determined by Federalism verses anti-Federalism. You need to look at the right as it was originally applied in the UK to see what its boundaries are.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

The proposed bans are already reasonable.

That is incorrect. There is nothing reasonable about a ban on pistol grips.

hightor wrote:

Either a future Supreme Court could find them constitutional

If the Supreme Court were to rule that it is OK to violate the Constitution, that would not make it OK.

Further, only Democratic justices are in favor of violating the Constitution. That is a strong argument in favor of Republican presidents.

hightor wrote:

or the Second Amendment could be modified or repealed. The Constitution is not revealed scripture — it was designed to function as part of a political process.

The Democrats dream of repealing freedom in America. The American people will never stand for it though.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

I don't believe there is anything in the constitution that grants congress explicit authority to regulate religion. Yet I believe it is implied that congress has the right make laws to ban and disallow human sacrifices in religious practices.

Very unlikely that Congress has that authority unless it is somehow related to an area where they have express power granted by the Constitution. Most likely any such law would be the domain of state governments.

Real Music wrote:

Congress also has the implied authority to make laws that ban and disallow people from having multiple spouses, which is used in some religions.

Not likely unless it can be tied to one of their express powers.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is nothing reasonable about a ban on pistol grips.

Well, yes, there is. You don't see pistol grips on single shot rifles or classic semi-auto hunting arms. This is because accurate sighting is done with the stock raised to one's shoulder. With a pistol grip and a large clip magazine, the shooter can basically spray lead from the hip as fast as he can pull the trigger. This is inherently unsafe, especially given the mentality of the wannabe Rambos who are so susceptible to marketing gimmicks by gun manufacturers.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know