Jump to content
Good reply, and I agree.
Amended by the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Ratified Dec 15, 1791, amending all statements regarding federal powers that were previously approved under the original Constitution.
A Supreme Court ruling does not change the text of the Constitution. Your response is in fact a non-response. Address my statements: "Why is the court citing "longstanding prohibitions" instead of quoting the Constitution", or "There is no constitutional authority to apply previous court decisions, personal opinion, or personal interpretation", or "It should have been amended in 1945 if we want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of civilians, and amended again to require a background check to keep arms out of the hands of violent felons", or "Why have Congress and the state legislators passed "common sense laws" - which most of us support - instead of proposing a constitutional amendment as they are required to do?".
Dan, the 2nd Amendment itself controls the government's authority to ban, regulate, or license guns and ammunition, it says "shall not be infringed". The FBI annual reports show that specifically homicide has decreased consistently for the last 20 years, while the NICS (National Background Check System) shows massive gun ownership increases in the last 6 years. The NIJ (National Institutes of Justice) disagree with your statement regarding anecdotal stories. Although the numbers aren't reported or tracked, they estimate that guns are used to prevent crime at least 100K times per year, and that the figure is more likely 1M plus. These figures are based on NIJ studies.
There ARE Americans in prison today simply for owning firearms. Local authorities HAVE confiscated guns - see youtube videos on the local police response to Hurricane Katrina. Local authorities HAVE required the confiscation or voluntary relinquishment of legally bought firearms - see recent legislation in Connecticut. Remember the 1994 - 2004 ban on AR-style rifles (which didn't prevent the Columbine High School incident which occurred in 1999).
Chris, I agree with this statement, but the US government has very limited powers, all other powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", according to the 10th Amendment. Most of the text of the Constitution is written fairly specifically.
The "the sorts of weapons protected" are not listed in the 2nd Amendment. It states very simply that "the right of the people" - not specifically militia members, "to keep AND bear" - not only to keep or own, "arms" - not only self-protection weapons or hunting weapons, and "shall not be infringed" - not "shall not be banned" therefore allowing restriction.
Regarding this statement: "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Seriously? The court is quoting tradition instead of law? These judges should be impeached.
Chris, as written and signed into law, the 2nd Amendment IS unlimited. The court's opinion does not change the text of the Constitution. There is no constitutional provision for court interpretation, only authority to apply the law. Look at your last sentence - "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...". Why is the court citing "longstanding prohibitions" instead of quoting the Constitution? There is no constitutional authority to apply previous court decisions, personal opinion, or personal interpretation. The wording of the 2nd Amendment allows unrestricted ownership of arms. It should have been amended in 1945 if we want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of civilians, and amended again to require a background check to keep arms out of the hands of violent felons. Why have Congress and the state legislators passed "common sense laws" - which most of us support - instead of proposing a constitutional amendment as they are required to do? These men and women have taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". What is the excuse for passing unconstitutional legislation instead proposing amendments and allowing "we the people" to approve changes as required by Article 5 the Constitution?
We aren't "investing" in our childrens' futures, we're having our taxes increased. If we pass this, when will we get hit with the NEXT "investment"(tax increase)? And after reading this article, I have very little idea how the state is ACTUALLY going to spend my money. I started school in 1st grade and graduated as an honor student because I applied myself, grades 1-12 worked just fine. Stop manipulating our emotions with the "need" for state funded preschool, kindergarten, and "talented-and-gifted students"(are you kidding?). How does funding all this extra eduction create jobs or attract businesses? Are these businesses that will profit from the school system, therefore the state government, and therefore Colorado taxpayers?
You - meaning the Colorado state government - have already given us unfunded mandates, yet you expect us to trust you with even MORE money?
Sorry, but I'm not impressed with your use of cute terminology such as "sound investment in our children's future", "high-quality, innovative P-12 education", or "21st century workforce". Get your spending under control.
BS. These men are NOT working without pay, they will get a nice, big, 3 week paycheck in one lump sum when it's all over.
Absolutely, Connie, thanks for reminding everyone. There is far too much misinformation and manipulation out there.
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.