Posted on 06/03/2019 5:25:40 AM PDT by JamesP81
“Q The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon. Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t like them at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed the concepts.
Continue...
I’m not sure exactly how to continue, because I’m not entirely sure you are being serious.
“The Enumeration”? Article I Section 8?
You’re not familiar with this?
The US Gov is LIMITED to the powers granted the US Gov by the people. The powers and/or rites of the US gov are listed in the enumeration.
I have the rite to paint my hair blue because under art 1 sec 8, the enumeration, the us gov has no authority over my hair color. They also have no authority over my silencer purchases.
Mark Levin and G. Gordon Liddy before him have been preaching the enumeration on the radio for something like 50,000 years.
The US cons GUARANTEES my right to buy a silencer, to make it, to sell it, and to use it as I see fit.
Thank you.
We’ll regain your composure and struggle to continue then.
Congress has the power to regulate.
Sorry you had no clue.
Wow! Didn’t take long to get to the insults did it? Guess you know you’ve lost the argument already.
Yes, congress has the power to regulate? Is that power limitless? No, it is not. What are the limits of the power to regulate? The enumeration.
Sorry you had no clue. Now regain your composure and struggle to continue.
You poor thing.
It must really disturb you to find out there are limitations to what we can do that we run into many times in our daily lives.
By the way nimrod, you were tossing the insults yourself.
Nimrod, I didn’t use a single insult that you did not use first.
Now, are you familiar with enumerated powers?
Yes or no? Under what authority in the US cons does the G ban silencers?
Article and section, please.
Oh, I forgot, “you poor thing”
Mark Levin couldn’t even grasp Trump was preferred to Hillary Clinton until September 8th, 2016.
He’s dead to me.
You don’t like Levin so you reject the enumeration?
What do you say to the doctrine of enumerated powers?
Congress has the ability to make a determination if something is a threat to public safety or not.
Silencers are not enumerated in the second amendment, and it is reasoned for Congress to assess if the should be available to the public or not.
I have not advocated that silencers be made illegal. I do not do so now, but Congress does have that authority.
Can we possess ricin? Can we own a 50 caliber weapon as a general rule? Can we drive 175 miles per hour? Can we jaywalk, or walk across the street against the light? Can we run red lights?
Why not? No law should be made to tell us what we can or can’t do according to you.
“No law should be made to tell us what we can or can’t do according to you.”
Nonsense. I say that the us cons prohibits congress from telling me I cannot own a silencer.
Keep on topic. Don’t ask me if I can own a nuclear weapon or not. That is what is known as the logical fallacy of “abduction ad absurdum.”
The topic is silencers.
Please discuss silencers as they relate to the doctrine of enumerated powers. Enumerated powers, you know, the ones written into the us cons by the framers of the us cons.
I addressed this clearly. If you don’t have the mental faculties to grasp what I have written, don’t ask me to repeat myself.
You can say a lot of things. It doesn’t mean they are factual.
We are limited in the things we can own. It’s a fact of life.
You can.
You have yet to mention enumerated powers.
CONSERVATIVES believe that the g. is limited to the powers that are ACTUALLY GRANTED to the g. in the us cons.
LIBERALS believe that the g. is NOT limited to the powers actually granted.
Where do you stand?
Can you own ricin? No
Please explain to me why that being banned for public safety reasons, would be any different than banning silencers on public safety grounds.
I would not agree with Congress’ determination that silencers should be banned, but IT IS the preview of Congress to make these determinations.
They did it with ricin. They could do it with silencers.
Where does the us cons grant congress this power?
I’ve asked you before.
Your statement that just because congress did something, it is therefore legal is... Bizarre? Breathtaking?
Where does the cons grant this power?
Your quite the nincompoop aren’t you.
You started out aghast that I haven’t studied up on enumerated powers and went down hill from there trying to wedge me in through coercion based on the idea I wasn’t exhibiting Conservative values.
Bull stuff.
Where in the US Constitution is Congress given the power to prevent the public from possessing ricin?
You mentioned the absurdity of it, but where is the US government given the right to prevent us from owning nuclear weapons?
You tried to pass that off as an absurd comparison, but there’s that concept of Enumerated Powers. So you tell me, are you going with Conservatism or Leftist ideology on that one?
You wish. Your bizarre fixation on "arms" meaning only "firearms" has no support in history or current law. You're simply making stuff up as you go along. Consequently, while your post may well make you feel good about yourself, it is completely erroneous.
To put a final end to your foolishness, I note that federal law disagrees with you. Silencers are export restricted under ITAR as Category I—Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns, part (e).
Silencers are arms. The keeping and bearing of arms is specifically protected in the Second Amendment.
Game.
Set.
Match.
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.