Posted on 03/16/2005 12:51:41 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP
I guess mine are "versions" of.
“Try reading my posts. I've asked you several times why a Constitutional amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol.
The theories you are putting forth here are not congruent with the fact that an amendment was necessary. You are arguing that there are no Constitutional rights unless they are explicitly put forth in the Constitution.
You have also argued that the gov't has the power to do anything that it is not Constitutionally prohibited from doing.
So, the question remains. Why couldn't Congress outlaw alcohol by statue? Were they mistaken? Didn't they realize there was no right to alcohol and no limit on Congressional power in this area?”
I’d have to read the debates at the time. In general, the bill or rights is a list of prohibitions on the powers of government and the rest of the Constitution is simply boilerplate as to how the government will be organized and operate. Congress has outlawed a broad variety of things over the years. Drugs come to mind. No amendment was required. A more telling question would be, what acts have been precluded to government as a result of the 9th or 10th. I contend about none.
It is the reach of the courts into the legislative field that is more dangerous. As to alcohol specifically, it probably took an amendment for political reasons, ie; those against the idea made such a process necessary. If they had not objected so powerfully, the history might have been different.
From what I have read of your posts, you seem to believe that you are protected against reaches by unstated rights and powers found in the 9th and 10th. This is entertaining but has little effect on any of us.
I have argued that congress has the “power” to do anything not expressly prohibited. I stand by that. Heck, they have the “power” to do stuff that IS expressly prohibited. They do it all the time. Again a better question would be, what gave congress the “right” to act in such a way. My answer would be a combination of their very own reaching and the courts acting outside the constitution.
So, going back to cannon and the second. If the second cannot be found to explicitly protect an individual in owning cannon, then Congress does have the “power” to make them go away and arguing otherwise using the second would be futile. You would be better arguing on simple property rights law, and I believe you would lose there as well.
You seem to confuse what you believe the Constitution should do and say with what it really does do and say.
AK47 was designe as a full auto weapon. SKS is a semi auto similar in design but built by other mfrs. There are AK47 look alikes and I may be unaware of recent changes to the design. I'll restate, As far as my knowledge goes all AK47s are full auto. M16 is full auto. AR15 is semi auto version.
"Using your logic, since Jefferson owned slaves and slaves are not mentioned as being Men and Women in the Constitution, then slavery was OK? "
Not OK, just legal and constitutional at the time.
If you mean by this that this firearm should be "controlled" or illegal to possess, then you are indeed an idiot, and the very reason that Ak's are "on the street".
And you're OK with this?
You are right that there is a difference between rightful exercise of power and the exercise of power. Most conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with the hopes of restoring the gov't to its rightful place.
This is a different thing than arguing about how to game the system as it is presently operating. I fear you are doing the latter (lawyering) while we are doing the former (engaging in philosophical discussion).
You seem to confuse what you believe the Constitution should do and say with what it really does do and say.
It says what it says. The question is whether the gov't is abiding by what it says.
SD
I was wrong. There is a semi auto version built for US markets.
Check out Robinson Armaments; they offer Ak47s, made in Russia no less, either in semi or full auto. Other companies do as well. Now I agree that when Mr. Kalashnikov invented the AK 47, it was invented as a full auto "assault weapon", but today one can acquire "AK 47" in a wide variety of designs. Point being that from the article posted, it is impossible to know whether the perps were using full or semi versions. I have owned many versions of AKs, but never a full auto version, and thus, never needed "no stinkin license" to own or use them. But you are correct that the "mint" AK was designed by the Mr. K as a full auto light infantry weapon.
“You are right that there is a difference between rightful exercise of power and the exercise of power. Most conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with the hopes of restoring the gov't to its rightful place.
This is a different thing than arguing about how to game the system as it is presently operating. I fear you are doing the latter (lawyering) while we are doing the former (engaging in philosophical discussion). “
The question was. “are rocket launchers and mortars protected by the second amendment”? Alarmingly, some who should know better said yes. I asked for real, honest to God constitutional or legal arguments and I got philosophy, opinion, and a hodge-podge of Constitutional cites that did not come from the second.
I fail to see how plugging ones personal opinion into an issue that begged for a factual answer is good for the discussion. There simply is NO legal protection for such weapons under the second. No court has ever held such to be true mostly because no lawyer has ever been able to make even a weak case.
Once again, you have failed to answer a question of mine. My last post asked "And you're OK with this?"
That's a valid question to ask, given your arguments here. I think you should try to answer it.
SD
I speak about what the Constitution IS while you speak of what you wish it were
No, you speak about what the gov't IS and what it has usurped. I am speaking about what the Constitution IS, what it says and what that means, in plain English.
I acknowledge we are discussing two different things. There's no need for you to get snotty about it.
SD
By gos , you're rig t!
Sorry.
We simply differ. I can only produce the document itself, the clear language of the discussions surrounding it, the early acts of the congress and a score of court opinions. I must be wrong as your body of evidence is so much stronger.
You have never grasped that, even though I've come right out and told you.
SD
There is no rational thought in that statement.
Punish the criminal. Not the tools.
How about we ban cars that kill more people than legally purchased firearms every year?
thanks you guys, wish there were a few million more like you out there. i'm ... just dang sad over how things are. over how the three branches have userped powers never given to them.. the states have too according to their own Constitutions.
i'm proud of you guys. and i learned some things on this thread from you all. so thanks again..
Understand. I've been a fan of AKs for some time, but moved on a few years ago.
I guess so. That would be a special order, wouldn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.