It was a rhetorical question, not intended to embarrass you as nobody else can answer it either.
Yes they are and thatâs why criminals donât buy them legally, the either steal them or buy them illegally and they certainly donât register them.
1 Like
More to the point, I would argue that under the existing Law of the Land, the Articles of Confederation, no matter what the claims made about Ratification within the then proposed law, that votes to ratify by less than all the several States the Constitution could not lawfully replace the AoC until the terms for its amendment process (100% or nothing) had been met.
Which is to say any of the sereveral States at the time could have lawfully been well within their rights to not ratifiy and then demanded the rest remain under the AoC.
So, per that point of Law, the Constitution only seemed to be in force without a further BoR. But by the time it had lawfully been Ratified under the standard of the Law under which it had been proposed ⌠it came with Amendments already.
Yep yep, thatâs what I saidâŚ
No thatâs not what you said. You said what she quoted.
Lol, not that restrictions to bump stocks and suppressors represents a threat to any right to bear arms anyway. Constitutional due process is a foreign matter to this president anywayâŚ
No, it doesnât miss the point because Iâm not talking about the BoR. Once we started mentioning the several States and their Jurisdictions rather than / as opposed to the federal and the BoR, as happened after Iâd pointed out the unlawful nature of current federal gun laws, it was natural and proper to bring up the Law that did indeed apply to the several States and which existed in the unamended Constitution.
You may want to try crawl back in the direction of the 2nd as if that could leave the States room to do something about Arms in the hands of the citizens but Iâm sticking to my guns and will continue to mention the actual part of the Law that applied and still applies. One needs to argue the proper part of the Law, not just the general principals of the Law.
This was the mistake Barronâs lawyers made and which Marshall would have none of it! It is also a point that the corrupt and lawless modern Court abuses to assert the supremacy of its claimed powers.
Barronâs lawyers might have argued on the basis of A4:S2:C1 that he had some right to expect compensation for the denial of the use of his property but they did not do that, they did not argue the correct part of the Law, but instead they tried to get the Court to incorporate the BoR to cover the several States and Marshall thumped the good for their efforts.
It simply was not John Marshallâs job to offer in his opinion what he might have seen as better arguments than council has offered because because he was to be a jurist and not council (and improving arguments or just improvising in the opinion would make one an advocate for one side in a proceedings). Thus, unlike the modern Court which loves its own editorials and opinions so much they make them out to be law rather than the Law they arrogate, he didnât improve on Barronâs lawyersâ arguments.
Simply, and again contrary to what some modern jurists have opined, if youâve a right to a lawyer and it turns out (as it did in cases as diverse as Barronâs or should have happened for that one guy whose lawyer slept through hearings) that your lawyer is a nitwit then the responsibility for dismissing them is yours alone, and a right to seek legal council is also a right to a bad lawyer if you persist in keeping him.
⌠but I digress âŚ
Iâm arguing the correct part of the Law that from the beginning applied to the several States and why their anti-gun laws are out of sort too. It is a point of Law that in no way depends on any idea of incorporation of the BoR.
If you want to talk about what some may have imagined the federal might do during those months before the BoR ⌠fine.
But if you want to talk about the States then A4:S2:C1 is where itâs at.
Iâm sorry, I was, and from my earliest comment in this thread.
Isnât Northam the guy who described how a baby who survives a late term abortion and is born alive becomes a candidate for infanticide depending on the âchoiceâ of life or death the women makes. And this is someone who is concerned of innocentâs being killed by gun violence! 
Unbelievable shamelessness and hypocrisy which not only applies to Northam but anyone who supports late term abortion and infanticide while pushing gun laws to âsave & protect the innocentâ! 
1 Like
I realize that. But when I started trading words with you and I pointed out the facts of the lawlessness of the federal, you came back IIRC saying something about the States doing more.
At that point I transitioned to a relevant discussion with you over State powers and limitations which the BoR has no bearing on.
Itâs damned tough to make a logical, non hypocritical argument if youâre a democrat today.
1 Like
Well, if theyâre just talking with other Leftists itâs really not even needed.
This emotional, sentimental Left is hardly new.
Just about the very first time I ever heard of George Soros was during the Clinton years and in particular I watched a talking head show he was on. On that show I heard him up front bad mouth the human capacity for reason. I really donât remember much else but Iâve had Mr Give up my Fortune to defeat Bush number ever since.
And heâs only shown himself even worse than that over time
I understand but really never wanted to get off into that. It began with my comment that the first document, the document ratified by the first 9 states each at their own state conventions, was done so without any individual protections, which was added later by way of amendments.
You did open the door though.
On an unrelated note: that Vermin guy has a platform of enforced brushing of teeth and a federal entitlement to ponies.
Not sure how I feel about that tooth brushing bit. 
Not sure what that meansâŚ