So.. Now The Entire Constitution Is On The Table

Biden's been following a certain historical playbook. Useful idiots will be horrified when it finally dawns on them which side they've been on all along.

Well, both the right and the left have been the American Goebbels.

You are Fake News™

Aren't we all?

The controlled substances act was passed under Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, he Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to “To regulate commerce..."

:P

That is Congressional authority for a law. Not a constitutional provision. There is no constitutional right to get high.

I was going for more the inverse, the right of the federal government to regulate commerce, and therefor to make substances illegal being no longer absolute....but OK, I can see your hang-up with it.

They can only regulate commerce across state borders

If that's the case ,then the controlled substance act is already void. I suspect the congress and senate covered that detail....

Now you are getting it. Why do you think they haven't shut down dispensaries in Colarado? Because the feds can't legally do that.

No, it's because the sheriff has more than any fed within the county he's elected in, and the sheriff is protecting them under state law.

More power..... somehow I missed typing that.

FDR screwed this country when he started tweaking the scope of the commerce clause in his effort to make the great depression last as long as he could.

Now it is used to justify micromanaging just about every facet of business. What FDR did also changed the meaning of the word "regulate". It used (and still does in some cases) mean to equalize. Now it means exert excessive controls over business. This is why, several years ago, the Feds came down hard on an Amish dairy farmer who lived near a state border. When it was found out that he had customers across state lines the Feds, nor absolutely no reason at all, came and shut the farm down. They took all of the cows and equipment and left the farmer with no means to earn a living.

https://i.imgflip.com/550m0r.jpg

If this is true then why isn't anybody going after the press for their blatant lies, bias and failure to remain neutral?

Pffft. Because you get unpersoned if you do that.

Good One - 20f68v.jpg (click to show) Meme Upvoted!

Thank you.

Not really, but I see what you are getting at.

Anyone heard of the chain gang genre of music? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjun2qQb3QY

White man or Democrats?

You’re assuming these were all innocent men you are depicting as “slaves”. Unfortunately for that argument, the 13th Amendment states “punishment for crime.. .. duly convicted.”

So I guess it goes without saying:

Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.

And you're assuming they were all guilty of an actual crime. After slavery ended incarceration became a common way of getting free labor. Of course this was the time of lynchings and militias driving around in groups enforcing segregation and God knows what else. Back then a black person could get arrested for speaking out of turn or giving a white person back-lip.

You’re not wrong. But that is a different chapter and era in American history.

But again, that doesn’t make it “slavery” per the 13th. If mass incarceration of minorities is now considered “slavery”, then Joe Biden’s crime Bill makes him one hell of a slave owner.

Is mass incarceration considered slavery? Not sure. I don't know what kind of work inmates are doing. What I do know is that Obama tried to ban private prisons but Drumpf undid all of that. The system needs an overhaul. That's been obvious for years. As for that crime bill from - the late 90's was it? - apparently 60% of African-Americans supported the bill due to the crime explosion that happened when crack took over.

Here's another video of a chain gang at work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1O2X890tig

Doesn't it take 3/4 of the states to ratify or repeal an amendment to the Constitution? Sleepy Joe can talk all he wants, 2nd amendment is here to stay.

The thirteenth amendment doesn't actually abolish slavery. it's incredibly f**ked up.

That’s because the abolishment of slavery came with the Emancipation Proclamation. Along with the 13th, slaves no longer exist - in the United States that is.

You won’t see prisoners working for free in a Coca-Cola or Nike factory any time soon.

Slavery exists in the prisons of the US.

False; again - not all prison labor is “forced” labor. Therefore, no - “slavery” does not exist in all of our prisons.

If it did, someone tell Nike they can bring their manufacturing jobs to the US. I’d much rather we use condemned prisoners as slaves than Chinese children.

But they won’t. Know why? Because slavery doesn’t exist in the United States.

So why are prisoners payed mere cents an hour to do manufacturing work in US prisons?

*sigh* Please to read the 13th amendment in full. If you are having trouble understanding I can break it down. Again.

Exactly.

Have you heard of hard labor? It is temporary better condition slavery?

So the constitutional amendment process - and the vast majority of the Constitution that was added later - are just going to be ignored by you?

What’s being ignored, exactly?

We’re not talking about additions to the Constitution. Basically, by saying that “no Amendment is absolute” is an attack on every Amendment. Thus, the joke is - the thirteenth Amendment to the constitution (which was added later) is not absolute. Therefore, slavery is back on the table. Yeah?

Except that slavery is explicitly forbidden whereas gun control is not.

False; the only amendment that says “shall not be infringed” is the second. Yeah? So where does the 2nd amendment state it can be circumvented by gun control when it states otherwise.

You do not have a constitutional right to an assault weapon.
Your constitutional right to be armed is not under threat, either from this or other gun control legislation.

What is an “assault weapon”? Who determines this and what constitutes such? If illegal weapons and criminals are the issue, why impose legislation on legal gun owners? That solves nothing.

Chicago has insanely restricted gun laws for legal citizens leaving criminals with the guns. If you think gun laws work, please enlighten me on why Chicago is a shooting gallery every week.

It's quite easy to look up what an assault weapon is. Google is your friend.

So you want me to do your research for you? Cute.

Per Britannica:

“Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.”

I have an AR that is semiautomatic ONLY. So it must not be an “assault rifle” - per the definition.

Right?

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

he is actually right that assault weapons are not exactly rigorously defined. They aren't really any more deadly either, however the assault weapons ban did see a period of reduced mass shootings. go figure.

The Founders said 'Arms' not 'Guns'. Technically 'Arms' is 'an object that is used with the intent to cause bodily harm or death to another person'. Arms can be anything from a Dinner Fork jammed into a neck artery to Fists for beating someone's skull in to a shooting someone in the heart with a Gun. The Founders intended for the Law-Abiding to be able to protect themselves from those that abuse The 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd amendment was providing for an army for the new country they were creating. I mean yeah the British were tools back then so they wanted people to be able to defend themselves from their ish. But things were soooo different than they are now. I highly doubt our founding fathers would consider the kind of firepower we have available as being something "necessary" that needed to be provided for by the constitution.

"But Google is Soros MSM!"

The legislation would be for everyone. Anyone who breaks the law will get punished accordingly. The Chicago argument has been beaten to death. Gun control will only be effective if every state passes the same laws.

False; no one wants to take on the Chicago argument because it is a blatant failure of gun laws. Criminals will get guns - period.

Maybe instead of focusing on legally owned firearms, the government should create a task force (oh I don’t know.. like the ATF) to counter black market sales to criminals.

To pass strict gun laws like Chicago to every state leaves us all at the mercy of criminals - who unfortunately don’t really give a shit about gun laws or your feelings about them.

Either way, I will always carry - even if my state claims I don’t have that right. Again, we are allowed three specific rights:

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I won’t risk the “life” or “liberty” rights because you crybabies don’t want to acknowledge radical Islamist terrorists in fear of “islamophobia” or some shit.

If more people carried - less gun violence would occur. Fact.

Except it worked in NYC.

Until, that is, the idiots let the criminals out last year because of Covid plus that new bail law.

Weird, isn't it, unrestricted things manage to do things they can't when restricted.

Oh, and check out how Chicago ranks when compared to other places in ratio to population.

The only two things those gun laws prove is that it is now nearly impossible for a legal gun owner to purchase or conceal a weapon in the State of New York. Weird, that "weapons" are the problem and not mental health.

I can't wait until they take away all of our guns and we are getting hacked away with machetes like in Europe.

If someone wants to kill people, the lack of a gun won't make a difference in the case - it will make self-defense near impossible though.

Also weird that the gun-grabbing Dems also do not hesitate to have private ARMED security, right? I unfortunately cannot afford that luxury.

You forgot the "Safest big city in America" part.

The rest you posted is irrational gibberish which is even sillier than the other Silly Billy's nonsense I had to look at. So, like his, I didn't look at it.

Screenshots. How special.

Is this where you run to Gab for one of your followers that isn't your alt?

Does the constitution specifically give you the right to own this type of weapon? NOPE. It says arms, nothing specific. Our forefathers would probably be mortified by the firepower available today.

So because they only had muskets, that’s the only arms secured under the second amendment? That’s some real progressive thinking.

It says “arms” which secures most small arms within the 2A. Doesn’t matter what YOU THINK our forefathers would think about our advancement in firepower.

Do you think 2A has to specifically say something to mean it? So it has to say “the right to bear an AR-15..” etc?

Everyone should have the right to own the same firearms as the military. 2A was created to stop tyrannical government.

Everyone has the right to SUPPLY their own firearms as a recruited volunteer to the military when needed.
The 2A was created because the fledgling government neither had nor could afford a professional standing army.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, January 25, 1788

Exactly, although that comment might have better served the raging myopics.

The thing that most leftists get wrong about this is that while the first part and second part are somewhat related, the semi-colon means that they are not dependent upon each other. This means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t restricted to the times they are part of a militia. They can have any firearm, whether they are part of a militia or not.

That is just silliness.

Explain where I’m wrong. Dismissing it as silly without a reasonable excuse is not good enough. I showed the reason why they are separate ideas while still being similar. The least you can do is say why you think it’s silly.

Stop being silly.

Posted it already, right up above. Have a looksie.

Up late for someone who retires at 4pm, aren't you?

aww, don't worry, you'll probably survive.

Definitely not.
And 2A clearly says it's talking about a militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, January 25, 1788

The thing that most leftists get wrong about this is that while the first part and second part are somewhat related, the semi-colon means that they are not dependent upon each other. This means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t restricted to the times they are part of a militia. They can have any firearm, whether they are part of a militia or not.

Especially the communists. They actually need guns.

"You do not have a constitutional right to an assault weapon."

It's funny listening to people grossly ignorant of history bloviate about things they know nothing about.

Like you?

You know what one of the founders explicitly said was covered under the Second Amendment? Cannons. They explicitly said, Yes, your right to own cannons is protected by the Bill of Rights.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just an NPC repeating your programming.

You still have no constitutional right to an AR-15.

One of the people RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DOCUMENT, said cannons, yes, and you still say AR-15, no.

You're an ignorant moron.

Why is an AR-15 so different? What feature makes it so dangerous? Be specific please.

I'm sorry, I thought you knew guns.

"I'm sorry, I thought you knew guns."

I notice you failed to answer the question.

Then why is Pedo Joe trying to amend the constitution to eliminate 'ugly black guns'?

He's not.

You do

Slavery is actually not explicitly forbidden. Prison slavery is still totally legal. Should be illegal, but it's not.

Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand?

It's not being infringed.

"Gun control" is infringing on the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, and is expressly forbidden by the Second Amendment

No, it regulates the distribution of arms. There is nothing in this or other laws preventing a law abiding citizen from getting a gun.

There's nothing in "gun control" preventing you from getting drafted into military service for free as the 2nd Amendment provides.

The Second Amendment is not about the draft. That is the statement of an imbecile.

Agreed, what you said is.