Originally Posted by tonton
So if it's well supported by the courts, and it's about guns, then the fact that it's well supported by the courts is a valid justification. But if it's well supported by the courts, and it's about the commerce clause, then... being well supported by the courts is not an important point?
Are you arguing that the courts are infallible? Or that you always agree with them? I wasn't attempting to make either of those points.
Among does not mean the same thing as between. And with nations, and with the various Indian tribes. I know what the Commerce Clause says.
"Among the states" does not mean "between the states?" If that's your position, you clearly don't understand the intent or background on the clause itself. The clause was included to "make normal" interstate commerce. That is, to prevent tariffs, quotas, and other impediments between the states.
Here is an opinion piece on the matter: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...iginal-intent/
But even more fundamentally, the Commerce Clause itself was never meant by the Founders to be a blank check for “command and control” economic regulation. Indeed, the economic purpose of Article one Section 8 was almost precisely the opposite of the conventional explanation accepted by the majority in this case.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.
And here is another: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...tecommerce.htm
Notice that even under the most pro-federal interpretation, the assumption that we are talking about interstate commerce is made:
The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy. At least four possible interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are divested of all power to regulate interstate commerce.
I don't have time right now to make an extensive legal argument. Obviously there is a lot of disagreement and debate about this issue, but my position is that Congress should not have broad authority over commerce."
And the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the populace against the possibility of an oppressive Government or in case the Government fails to fulfill its duties to protect.
Yes. They were more rich then they knew...
But even so, that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment, as it's currently worded, doesn't allow people to own arms for hunting or for personal safety (though those are not explicitly granted rights, nor are they inclusive in the Amendment's intent).
I have always supported the idea that to further control, as is necessary, the terrible situation that private gun ownership causes, we need to amend the Constitution. Likewise, it must be recognized, that to further restrict the power of Congress or the Federal Government, the Constitution would need to be amended.
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree that's a good idea, but if we continue to restrict gun ownership, I agree the Constitution would have to be amended. As a previously stated, the right to bear arms has already
been infringed in many ways.