It's all about how far down the road to total rejection of God and His laws the nation has gone and if there's still any possibility of us turning back to Him as a nation and regaining His blessings.
Do you believe in the laws of this nation that call for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and how it is applied?
Are you also aware that the Supreme Court has found that limting guns for sale, limiting those who are eligible to buy and carry arms, limiting where those arms can be carried, and even more limitations have been found to be Constitutional?
quote:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. DC v. Heller 2008
I don't believe the Supreme Court does what it was meant to do much of the time as it tends to create laws instead of interpreting them, and to my mind it's many times violated the Constitution by changing its meaning to suit themselves.
Interpreting the Constitution is a power given the the Supreme Court by the Constitution. Do you disagree with the Constitution?
I've never objected to having some restrictions and limitations on guns, clearly some are necessary. And I don't follow all the ins and outs of those limitations, I accept the opinions of sane gun owners and second amendment defenders. They know if the laws are wrongly encroaching on the second amendment or not. And the opinion from that quarter is that what Obama did is illegal and unconstitutional.
I have read the Constitution and I seemed to have missed the section where it stated that the Constitution is to be interpreted by what you consider to be sane gun owners and second amendment defenders. It quite clearly states that it is to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. I don't know about you, but I think we should go along with what the Constitution says, that is unless you want to throw out the laws that this nation was founded on.
Also, I see nothing in the executive orders that could even come close to being considered unconstitutional. Perhaps you can point them out to us?
The strongest measures in those orders require federal agencies to make data avaiable that may be relevant in federal background checks. I would hardly call that unconsitutional since background checks are constitutional, are required by law, and Obama does run the executive branch so it is well within his power to require his employees to make this information available. How about this heinous misuse of power?
"Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."
Oh my goodness, THE EVIL!!!!!
And then you say that this that and the other sort of restrictions have been found to be Constitutional, and all I can say is if the sane gun owners and defenders I mention accept them as Constitutional I'm fine with them, but there's nothing guaranteeing that the Supreme Court is going to arrive at anything genuinely Constitutional.
You and your friends were not given the power to decide what is and isn't constitutional. It would seem that you are the one who wants to throw the Constitution out the window.
Much of this sounds reasonable to me except the part forbidding guns in "sensitive places," because those laws are INVITING these crazed shooters into those very areas. ONLY the criminals are going to carry guns there while the good guys obey the law. That's a recipe for disaster.
If we threw out every law that criminals break then we wouldn't have any laws left.
Some of their decisions have been screamingly contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. This is already an undermining of the nation when our laws are perverted like this.
How cna this be an undermining of the law when it is the law?
What it comes down to is that you don't like the laws, even when they are constitutional and have passed constitutional review as required by that very constitution.
However, it seems to me I recall that Thomas Jefferson had a problem with the powers given to the Supreme Court as too easily abused.
So Jefferson thought that we should throw out God's laws too?
What I gather is considered to be unconstitutional about Obama's executive orders is that they ARE executive orders which infringe upon a Constitutionally given right of the people.
What is unconstitutional about the President running the Executive branch? That's his job, afterall. Every president since George Washington has given executive orders. Also,
"Although there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
People on your side of the issue are just flat out wrong.
You seem to be confused, Taq. It's very possible for a nation to have laws that OPPOSE God's laws, and we have a lot of them these days, and that's very bad for the nation.
Then let God come down and tell us which laws he wants changed. Until then, all we have is your complaining.
It's also possible to have laws that are contrary to the Constitution even while claiming to be constitutional, and we do have those too.
Not after the Supreme Court has ruled. Once they have determined that a law is constitutional then it is constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that limiting access to guns is constitutional, therefore it is. That is how our government works.
As I already very clearly said, we KNOW what laws are in accord with God's will by knowing what His word says and if we don't we can read it and find out.
The Bible is the writings men like any other. Any laws contained in the Bible are man's laws because it is men who wrote them. If there is a God and he does have laws that he doesn't want broken then he can appear in Congress like any other lawmaker and present his case.
The Supreme Court can and has violated the Constitution in the name of the Constitution.
All you are doing is complaining because the Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say.
I guess things have gotten so bad nobody knows what basic Christianity is any more. MY belief? No, it's standard historical Biblical Christianity that used to be the basis of western civilization.
Why are people this short sighted. The vast majority of western civilization in christian Europe was dominated by dictators, not democracies. You are aware of this, are you not? In fact, Charlemagne, in the name of God, conquered the Goths and offered them two choices: convert to Christianity or die. Many opted for death. That is your beloved christian western civliziation.
The restricting of gun rights is not something WE'd do that He'd react to with punishment, but would itself be God's judgment on the nation, which I would take as a sign that we're so far down the road to total judgment He's abandoned the nation altogether. I attribute the restriction to HIS will as judgment against us. It IS punishment, not something He'd punish us FOR.
Yes, let's look at our punishment. We have more freedoms than any previous generation of humans ever. The technology we possess is beyond anything dreamt of just 100 years ago. We are a very, very affluent nation. So affluent, it turns out, that just one of our states, California, would rank as the 5th most powerful economy if it were its own nation. Yeah, we are really feeling that wrath.
This is a very complicated subject and not something to discuss on this thread. As briefly as possible, the full expression of Christianity in the west was not possible until the Protestant Reformation. Before that the Roman Church had control of the nations and their dictators and killed people in the name of Christ and so on. Early on however there was genuine Christian influence, before the Roman behemoth took control and ushered in the dark ages. But the real inspiration for the West began with the Protestant Reformation. But let's not discuss this here.
So just ignore all of that bad stuff that happened in christian based western civilizations, right?
9/11 was God's judgment that just about everybody ignored.
Those were humans flying those planes, in case you have forgotten.
When a nation comes under judgment the only thing you can do to save it is turn back to Him. This nation continued going down all the wrong roads. We are now at the very door of total economic collapse.
That already happened 80 years ago, and we seem to still be around. Have you once again forgotten your history?
Re: Some cases where guns would have helped and where they did help
Would you agree that to be able to confiscate guns owned by citizens those who would do so need to know who has guns?
Yes, which is why registering your car is an obvious government plot to take away your car. Afterall, they need to know where those cars are so they can come and take them away.
The indications are that the government is preparing for something big due to purchases of ammunition. If they are not preparing for something big then why is all the different government agencies including the post office buying millions and some agencies billions of rounds of ammunition.
This is precisely the reguritation that I am talking about. You are one of the sheeple.
How can guns be interpreted as a constitutional right when they are mentioned nowhere in the constitution? By your line of reasoning, each individual should be able to possess nuclear and biological weapons, as they are also types of "arms."
The current court interpretation is "common usage". The right to bear arms refers to the arms that are commonly used at that point in time. That is what came out of DC v. Heller (2010).
quote:The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
So what is the right that is not to be infringed upon? The right to have weapons that are sufficient to defend oneself. The right does not extend to unusual or uncommon weapons, and limitations on what can be bought or owned are constitutional as long as people are still able to buy commonly recognized arms.
Both DC v. Heller (2010) and Heller v. DC (2011) seem to be the most recent rulings on the purpose and extent of the Second Amendment.