Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

[carlfense]

And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power...

How do you reconcile the underlined with Article VI Clause 2?

Specifically, how can you argue that the framers intended for the states to hold "the majority of power" when they specifically gave the federal government supreme authority?

You can quote whatever you'd like from the Federalist Papers. I've read them as well. They don't change what is said in the Constitution itself.

 

[Yossarian]

And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power...

Specifically, how can you argue that the framers intended for the states to hold "the majority of power" when they specifically gave the federal government supreme authority?

Actually, the supreme authority is the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically limit the authority of the Federal Government.

 

[rawhide]

Got nothing about the constitution or BoR but:

another point of view

Linky: http://www.theglobalistreport.com/cause-of-mass-shootings-and-gun-control-failure/

In some ways I agree with this. Mental health care is abhorrent in this and other countries. Plus the stigma attached to the disease doesn't help.

Maybe if there were better healthcare centers, especially in higher crime areas, possibly that could help reduce the violence. idk just spitballin'

 

[Yossarian]

Got nothing about the constitution or BoR but:

another point of view

Linky: http://www.theglobal...ontrol-failure/

In some ways I agree with this. Mental health care is abhorrent in this and other countries. Plus the stigma attached to the disease doesn't help.

Maybe if there were better healthcare centers, especially in higher crime areas, possibly that could help reduce the violence. idk just spitballin'

There is some truth to what you say. The rights of the individual (in this case, the mentally ill) have taken precedence over the needs of society. Health care in this country has come to mean prescription drugs and turning those who need care out into the streets.

 

[carlfense]

And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power...

Specifically, how can you argue that the framers intended for the states to hold "the majority of power" when they specifically gave the federal government supreme authority?

Actually, the supreme authority is the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically limit the authority of the Federal Government.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . "

states < federal government. It's right there in black and white. No reading of the Federalist Papers will change it.

If you don't like it you're welcome to amend it. (I think that you've made that argument. )

 

[Yossarian]

And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power...

Specifically, how can you argue that the framers intended for the states to hold "the majority of power" when they specifically gave the federal government supreme authority?

Actually, the supreme authority is the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically limit the authority of the Federal Government.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . "

states < federal government. It's right there in black and white. No reading of the Federalist Papers will change it.

If you don't like it you're welcome to amend it. (I think that you've made that argument. )

Actually, the Constitution trumps the laws of the land. There's an outfit called the "Supreme Court" that determines if the laws is permissible under the Constitution. For info on it, check this site...http://www.supremecourt.gov/

I said nothing about the Federalist Papers.

 

[carlfense]

Actually, the Constitution trumps the laws of the land.

Did you miss this?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . "

The emphasis is added but if you still don't want to believe it I can probably find an image of the Constitution itself containing those words.

There's an outfit called the "Supreme Court" that determines if the laws is permissible under the Constitution.

Could you show me where the Constitution says that the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of a law?

I said nothing about the Federalist Papers.

No . . . but SkersRule did. That part was directed towards his comments. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Yossarian]

Actually, the Constitution trumps the laws of the land.

Did you miss this?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . "

The emphasis is added but if you still don't want to believe it I can probably find an image of the Constitution itself containing those words.

There's an outfit called the "Supreme Court" that determines if the laws is permissible under the Constitution.

Could you show me where the Constitution says that the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of a law?

I said nothing about the Federalist Papers.

No . . . but SkersRule did. That part was directed towards his comments. Apologies for the confusion.

Stop acting like you know nothing of U.S. history just to try and make a point. Then after you stop that, check out Marbury vs. Madison regarding judicial review. It was in all the papers.

 

[carlfense]

Actually, the Constitution trumps the laws of the land.

Did you miss this?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . "

The emphasis is added but if you still don't want to believe it I can probably find an image of the Constitution itself containing those words.

There's an outfit called the "Supreme Court" that determines if the laws is permissible under the Constitution.

Could you show me where the Constitution says that the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of a law?

I said nothing about the Federalist Papers.

No . . . but SkersRule did. That part was directed towards his comments. Apologies for the confusion.

Stop acting like you know nothing of U.S. history just to try and make a point. Then after you stop that, check out Marbury vs. Madison regarding judicial review. It was in all the papers.

Someone found out that judicial review wasn't in the Constitution. :lol:

Anyways, did you read the supremacy clause while you were at it? Did you note that powerful little "and" when you read it more closely?

 

[sd'sker]

Some Constitutional Amendments Are More Equal Than Others

The point of this litany? The threat of terrorism since 9/11 has prompted government to dramatically narrow the range of our individual freedoms under the Bill of Rights. But despite the shocking toll of gun violence over the past 11 years, the Second Amendment offers more protection today than it did in September 2001. Surely this contrast, this contradiction, is worthy of being part of the national conversation that is taking place in the wake of the latest mass shooting.Are Second Amendment rights more precious than Fourth Amendment rights or Fifth Amendment rights? Are they more important than First Amendment rights or Eighth Amendment rights? I'd love the president and Mitt Romney to answer those questions and to explain why the War on Terror seems to have bypassed the Second Amendment even as it has redefined the ways that many other constitutional amendments apply to our lives.

 

[Yossarian]

Address the post and not the poster.

 

[rawhide]

I'm not too worried about my 1st and 5th Amendment rights at this time. 4th Amendment; a little trickier. Do we allow some of that freedom to slip away to deal with active terrorist threats both real or perceived??? If we allow our 4th Amend to be degraded to catch criminals/terrorists where does that stop or how far is far enough and no further???

How about if we just leave the Amendments alone; except the 3rd I got no room unless they bring neat guns and ammo that I can pinch

Maybe I live in a simple world and nothing too bad has happened in my little corner ?? idk

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Address the post and not the poster.

I observed no personal attack thus far, you are baiting people into arguments just as much as they are alledgedly baiting you based on what you're trying to get across in your post above. The bat swings both ways here..................while the conversation is somewhat heated, it is NOT against board rules. It is a debate and with a debate during the debate someone might say "you said this" or "you meant this" a personal attack would be, "you are a moron and a waste of space." We are splitting hairs here...........

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.

 

[sd'sker]

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.

i just disagree with this. i do agree criminals will always be able to get guns. guns that they use in criminal activity (most likely drugs), but these mass murderers are not part of the criminal class. it is them i would want to slow down and deter until they can get mental help. it is not an issue of background checks, it is an issue of making the possession of these guns illegal so police can arrest them; possession would be the crime in and of itself.

also, are you saying that the aurora shooter would have done as much damage with a bolt-action rifle as he did with an automatic assault rifle with an extended magazine?

those would be my points in favor of stronger gun control.

 

[Yossarian]

Address the post and not the poster.

I observed no personal attack thus far, you are baiting people into arguments just as much as they are alledgedly baiting you based on what you're trying to get across in your post above. The bat swings both ways here..................while the conversation is somewhat heated, it is NOT against board rules. It is a debate and with a debate during the debate someone might say "you said this" or "you meant this" a personal attack would be, "you are a moron and a waste of space." We are splitting hairs here...........

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.

Just following your guidance. I have been kinda' alert to personal attacks ever since that poster called me a liar. I considered that "personal."

Now, back to the subject....the argument is settled - the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting game. It's about arming people to kill other people.