Posted on 07/28/2012 3:52:19 AM PDT by marktwain
Wrong, wrong, wrong. (Lurker)
Tell me that Ten Commandments in a theocracy are wrong. In fact, tell me that The Elohim telling Adam that if he ate of that particular tree he would die is wrong. Tell me that God's intent was not to regulate human behavior. Tell me that Adam did not have the liberty to choose to comply.
If you think that having parents to guide your first footsteps is not to regulate your behavior, you are greatly mistaken.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1)
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, qwhich was committed to my trust"(Paul, to his disciple Timothy, 1 Tim. 1:9+).
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well: for so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Pet. 2:13+). (This is the Peter whom Jesus commanded to be carrying his sidearm, but who used it in a spurt of anger injudiciously and unlawfully on the temple guards.)
I believe that your position as you give it is entirely unscriptural and contrary to the well-thought-out purpose of our Founders: that mankind is fallen, and must have a framework within which to choose righteous behaviors.
Please review your premises.
Does not he ancillary phrase "A well regulated Militia" ring some kind of chord in your noodle? that the regulation applies to the behavior of individuals with regard to arms, not the maneuvers of a military unit?
Respectfully --
Criminals are like electricity. They follow the path of least resistance. If someone had been concealed carrying in that theater, do you think it would have stopped Holmes from doing what he did? It didn’t deter those two thugs who tried to hold up an Internet cafe in Florida.
Shall not be infringed. Concealed, open, short barreled shotgun, or a full auto G18.
It is your RIGHT to do so.
Where in Art 1 Sec 8 does it give the FedGov power to even include a Section like 922 in it’s Code of Law?
Take your time we’ll wait...
Well, one guy was...but no good guys. Sensibly, there should have been at least 4-5.
It’s not a different story.
Santo Musotto is a moron. The press only quotes morons to further their anti 2nd A rights.
http://www.wsmv.com/story/19137384/3-people-carry-guns-into-movie-theater-in-putnam-county
“COOKEVILLE, TN (WSMV)... The officers explained the policy prohibiting weapons and asked the men to return their guns to their vehicles, which police said they did.
Police said the theater sign showing that weapons are prohibited was not large enough to be seen easily, so officers advised that it should be made more visible.
“
Oh great. Another conservative who equates God with government.
No wonder we are so screwed.
Actually, I wish it would, in that although open carry is accepted but not encouraged, moving to being a "shall issue" state on the license to carry concealed is in the right direction.
At this time in this state, one must give an acceptable reason for concealed; must have a signed character reference from five adult county residents; supply photos, fingerprints, and fees; publish a notice of intent to apply; and when approved, take a defined gun course. But keeping the license is at the whim of the Superior Court, who can remove it at any time.
This is much better tan in NY, where I was born and raised, that to even buy a handgun one needed a permit; and another premises permit was needed for keeping a gun in your home, another one for a store, etc. Getting a concealed carry permit was then formidable, and not deemed justifiable for most citizens.
I do not think that at this time open carry is advisable for broadly suppressing violent crime, nor very helpful to advancing the interests when concealed carry is a clear option. Concealed carry is shown to have an effect on slowing violent crime occurrence, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Finally, I think it's the concealed licensee whose responsible behavior tends to make him/her more civil and careful in promoting a polite society, to influence legislators and judges, and improve public acceptance more than the open carrier approach. Even the public sees that they have to demonstrate more upfront qualification than required of the open carrier. We'll see on that.
Let me suggest that for your answer you either consult a Constitutional lawyer, or conduct your own research. From a pragmatic point of view, this is the extant law which applies to handgun purchase and possession. In fact, IIRC persons prohibited are not even allowed to own ammo, let alone the firearms.
It’s a law in direct contravention to the plain language of the Constitution. If you can’t figure that out without a lawyer, you’ve got bigger issues than can be resolved in an Internet forum...
Oh? It seems to me that Congress has the power to make all our Federal laws: under Article 1 Section 1:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
More definitely, Congress shall not only make laws regarding providing for the general Welfare, but also promoting the general welfare: under Article 1 Section 8:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
That is, this portion empowers Congress to provide for (funding the execution of laws regarding) the general Welfare, and to make laws promoting the general Welfare, which is the objective of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Prohibiting minors, felons, and mentally unstable persons from buying, selling, transporting, owning, or possessing firearms and ammunition would seem to me as intended to promote the general Welfare, through Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Why is this not an enumerated power of Congress, in your thinking? The laws passed will be enforced by the Executive branch, who can organize the enforcement, and formulate concomitant regulations, as it sees fit; and all being overseen by the Judicial branch.
What is the problem?
Article 1 Sec 8 lays out the specific powers of the FedGov. Making any asinine law at all under the "general welfare" clause does not hold up under even casual scrutiny. Especially since the BoR adds further "declaratory and restrictive" clauses.
Clauses like "shall not be infringed". In no guise can "promoting the general welfare" be seen to include promoting gun control.
If your idea of "promoting the general welfare" includes setting up a US Department of Santiy to determine who can exercise their Rights and who can't.... Then we obviously have very different ideas of what "freedom" entails...
The words "necessary and proper" apply only to "powers" vested by the Constitution or among the "foregoing Powers".
The preamble to the Constitution explains WHY the Constitution was implemented but the reasons listed do not amount to vested powers. Nowhere is there a vested power which amounts to "Congress shall have the power to regulated the keeping and bearing of arms by the people". In fact, the Second Amendment says just the opposite.
The words, "Promote the general welfare", contain no limitation whatever on what might be considered by Congress to be consistent with this phrase. There would be no need for any enumeration of powers if this was what was intended by our Founders.
It's not obvious from where you are getting the notion that I am making any recommendations regarding mental stability or how to measure it. I am not. Why? Because we already have an apparatus instituted by our fellow citizens to determine whether a person is or is not incompetent, or if a person is so deranged that the general population needs to be protected from him/her as regarding firearms and/or ammunition, or of components of either.
That apparatus is called the judicial system, whether federal courts or state Superior courts; and where inhibiting a person's liberty is based on behavioral evidence and the recommendation of state-licensed "experts," on a case-by-case investigation, for judging the fitness of a person who might seem to be a bit odd, in reference to firearms, ammunition, or any component thereof. Neither you nor I have any influence of such decisions if we are not deemed qualified to do so.
What I am saying is that what is, is. If you don't like what is, do your best (respecting the rights and liberty of others) to change it. But don't try castigating me for only describing what exists, nor of mentioning the laws, ordinances, and regulations that we must accommodate, whether liking it or not.
What you might do is read up a little on "the Durkheim constant," which tries to estimate the range of behaviors that can be tolerated before a "deviancy" will no longer be tolerated. That limit is set by the laws, enforcement, applications, and traditions that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people have presented to us. In the end, beware of the philosophy of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
The application of our judicial system to a person's behavior is such that the person's having ever been involuntarily commitmented to a psychiatric institution is the limit beyond which the person may not lawfully touch, handle, buy, sell, transport, own, possess, or use firearms, ammunition, or appurtenances thereto, in the interest and welfare of the general population; whether or not the person is currently incarcerated.
No matter whether you or I may agree or disagree on the principle, that is the law.
Deal with it.
No. We know what “is”. The current legal fiction only stands if you discard the document that created it in the first place.
While you are apparently willing to use whatever tortured legal word smithing in common vogue to uphold the status quo, the rest of us a rightfully fed up with it.
Morons like you take a prefatory clause like “general welfare” and use it to prop up Socialist welfare and illegal expansions of Federal power.
We are not putting up with your BS any more.
Deal with it troll...
Yes there is a limitation. The Congress only has the enumerated Power to make laws regarding promoting and providing for the general welfare, and that is the exact reason why the Constitution was formulated. Although Congress is the font of all laws by, of, and for the general population, it is not given the Power to execute nor of justifying its laws. Those Powers are obviously distributed exclusively to the other two branches of the government. Furthermore, none of those Powers are given to the fourth estate, but the Power to criticise and howsomever communicate to the general population is.
Well, apparently you are having difficulty in finding your glutaeus maximus with either hand, figuratively speaking (maybe literally also?); for what we have is, and what you wish for "isn't." You still haven't found out whether I think that is good or bad. The fact is that persons who have been legally judged unfit to wander loose may not lawfully acquire or use deadly weapons. Do you think that is a good or a bad law? Hmmm?
While you are apparently willing to use whatever tortured legal word smithing in common vogue to uphold the status quo, the rest of us a rightfully fed up with it.
Your supposition seems a bit confused, for I have said nothing about upholding a status quo which, according to your claims, "isn't."
Morons like you take a prefatory clause like “general welfare” and use it to prop up Socialist welfare and illegal expansions of Federal power.
Perhaps you were not aware from your social origins and command of the language that there are other meanings for the word "welfare," and that "being on the dole" is not the one intemded by the Founders; and furthermore that the words they had in mind were synonyms like "prosperity" or "success" or "affluence" or literally, "well-being"?
We are not putting up with your BS any more.
I guess you and the mouse in your pocket want to wipe out the First Amendment to the Constitution, as well as eliminating the plain applications of its principles embodied in Article 1 Section 8 -- especially in its independent, free-standing last paragraph?
Deal with it troll...
Yup. I just did. Thanks for the opportunity! Are you free-floatimg yet? Blanks never win a battle of wits.
Ciao ---
I think one of us is confused.
If Congress has the "enumerated Power to make laws regarding promoting and providing for the general welfare", then what limit would exist aside from whatever any particular Congressman might think is beneficial?
Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court need only concern itself with whether a law "promotes or provides for the general welfare" in order to decide whether such law is Constitutional? I don't think so.
It's irrelevant. You are the one making a claim for infringement of our RKBA due to the Preamble of the Constitution. This is not an operative clause, but prefatory. This lack of basic reading skills is self evident...
Your supposition seems a bit confused, for I have said nothing about upholding a status quo...
Which only points out the fact that you have no idea what "status quo" means. Because you just got done saying...
for what we have is, and what you wish for "isn't."
Ugh... what a dumbass. I can hardly wait until you kids go back to school.
...and that "being on the dole" is not the one intemded by the Founders; ...
Nor did they intend for prefatory clauses to be used as operative clauses. The Preamble has no force in law. Art 1 Sec 8 does. That is why liberals scumbags normally have problems with the "militia" clause of the Second Amendment as well. It doesn't make them, or you, right. But I'm sure it makes them feel clever.
Article 1 Section 8
Actually, your are thinking Art 6 para 2. That is the clause that makes the Bill of rights apply. Later, the 14th add "privileges and immunities". The First stands on it's own and contains several operative clauses.
You really might want to go back and sign up for a remedial English Comp course. If you don't, you will never get that High School diploma...
The Constitution -- all of it -- was formulated to set up a mechanism for: (1) making laws; (2) implementing/executing laws; and (3) judging conformance to, or Constitutionality of, a law.
I think one of us is confused.
You are taking me to say that the Constitution empowers Congress to address only the general Welfare, and have no power to address other concerns. That is not correct.
I am saying that the Constitution empowers Congress alone to make laws (legislate); the Constitution does not give Congress any power to put its laws into effect (execute them), nor is Congress to decide whether a law passed and signed is allowable (judge its Constitutionality).
That is, basically:
Congress => makes a law
Executive branch/Presidency => Executes a law
Federal courts => decides a law's Constitutionality and/or whether the mode of executing it is a Constitutionally empowered process
It seems to me that you are confusing the construction of my sentence. Only Congress (supposedly) can make laws regarding any of the concerns listed in the Preamble. Making laws is not a function (supposedly) of the Presidency or of the Federal Courts.
If Congress has the "enumerated Power to make laws regarding promoting and providing for the general welfare", then what limit would exist aside from whatever any particular Congressman might think is beneficial?
None. He just has to get a majority of both houses to agree with him. (However, fellow legislators may evaluare his proposal vis-a-vis Constitutionality and say 'No, don't waste our time.') But the President may refuse to enforce it, and/or the Federal courts may decide that it is neither enforceable nor Constitutionally within the purview of Congress.
Unfortunately we have gotten into the situation where, if Congress refuses to make a law the President wants, he issues an Executive Order to make the law; or if a Federal court wants its concept of a law to be put into play, it does so through a judicial reinterpretation to extend the reach of a law which no legislator intended the law (or the Constitution) to mean. Thus the Original Intent is perverted and the Constitution subverted.
Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court need only concern itself with whether a law "promotes or provides for the general welfare" in order to decide whether such law is Constitutional?
Of course not. The grammar of the sentence does not have that intent or interpretation.
I don't think so.
Neither do I, and I will not permit you to rearrange my words to put that thought into the reader's mind. Or yours.
Neither am I so confused as to think that I am an expert in Constitutional Law. I am not; but I do form opinions on what I read there, and am willing to expose them.
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.