equivocating CHL with CC
It takes a on the the absolute no infringement take at the minimum. Quit looking at the tree and hoping and instead look around you, dim.
Remember this started with you said it meant "like clockwork" exclusively. You were parroting NRA blogs of course and still do which is likely why you lose sight of the argument.
The courts have already decided that reasonable regulations are cons utional. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
That doesn't mean that any regulations anti-gun advocates want to put in place are cons utional.
If you think that no one is arguing that the 2nd amendment prohibits any regulation then you are blind. TSA started out with the argument he pulled off of blogs that are arguing it and they are legion.
Actually DMC is arguing that CHL is uncons utional. Do you agree with him?
No. I think it's a good tool for arresting s bags and bangers that are carrying without a permit. Of course you would think my reasoning is discriminatory because like iD's for voting some minorities would be inconvenienced by having to get a CHL.
I quoted The Federalist whose purpose was to explain the Cons ution; there are few better sources for explaining the framer's intent. Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS cites it repeatedly throughout making case law. If someone would quote Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence it would have a similar gravitas, dimwit.@ the wannabe Supreme Court judges.
Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.
Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...
Don't you have a sibling to go kill or steal from or something?
Then why oppose those s bags and bangers having to register any firearm they own?
Because it would impede gun sales.
Because registration is going too far. The government doesn't need to know what is locked up in law abiding citizens gun safes.
There is ZERO reason to have blanket registration of law abiding citizens guns and criminals won't register theirs anyway.
We have nukes now. We have tanks. We have heavy artillery and machine guns. Theres no need for guns against outside threats. The govt and each other are all that guns need to be regulated for. We dont, and camt, compete with the military proper. My opinion, not the SCOTUS established precedence, again.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Cons ution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"On every occasion [of Cons utional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Cons ution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
So because we would be underdogs, it's better to be disarmed? That seems to make us even more in need of self defense, not less. So by your assessment the population should be allowed to possess tanks and nukes.
That didn't take long. Way to own your self, dimwit.
Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.
Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...
Didn't say it was law just like Hamiltons wasn't law...Dimwit.
You're not very bright, or just dishonest and . It's obvious CC was just showing you how easy it is to drop authoritative names as if they are laws.
You're reading comprehension is on display. Please point me to where I claimed that the Federalist was law. I stated that it was the Founders explanation of the Cons ution. It has been used extensively in the making of law like in SCOTUS rulings but the distinction is there. Try and keep up.
Compare and contrast with what you are doing here. If it is not law then who gives a ? What's next? Bible quotes?
you said it EXPLAINED the Cons ution. Hamiltons part of the papers explained HAMILTON'S position on the cons ution.
Most educated people know there is a difference.
Hamilton was an unabashed Federalist advocating a strong central government..
Jefferson and Madison (Who principally WROTE the Cons ution BTW) weren't as extreme as Hamilton, and in fact eventually formed The Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 12-29-2016 at 05:08 PM.
Fuzzy, if you are going to go all in on Hamilton do you agree with Federalist 84?
Whats up Fuzzy? Madly searching Wikipedia for Federalist 84?
Let me give you the Cliff Notes version...
Hamilton said we didn't need any damn Bill of Rights! He said you just needed to trust us (the federal government) to always do the right thing.
Fortunately Jefferson and Madison prevailed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
