House votes to delay bulk ammunition purchase by DHS

[Frosty]

Hopefully this link works unlike my last post, I clicked it & it seems to be ok.
Maybe ammo will start hitting the shelves again.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303803-house-votes-to-delay-bulk-ammo-purchase-by-dhs

[fightingquaker13]

It works. And some good amendments too, including cutting funds for sanctuary cities.

[tombogan03884]

It works. And some good amendments too, including cutting funds for sanctuary cities.

This lets me air a thought that I've been kicking around .
The Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme court ruled that Blacks could not be citizens since that would allow them all the rights and protections of the Constitution, such as carrying arms when and where they chose.
The decision that Blacks were not citizens was overturned later, however, the underlying premise is still valid .
The Rights and protections of the Constitution are reserved for citizens and are not automatically applicable to non citizens .
Illegal aliens are not eligible, neither are foreign terrorists , they may be kidnapped, killed, or tortured with impunity while still applying the laws in the case of citizens.

[Solus]

This lets me air a thought that I've been kicking around .
The Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme court ruled that Blacks could not be citizens since that would allow them all the rights and protections of the Constitution, such as carrying arms when and where they chose.
The decision that Blacks were not citizens was overturned later, however, the underlying premise is still valid .
The Rights and protections of the Constitution are reserved for citizens and are not automatically applicable to non citizens .
Illegal aliens are not eligible, neither are foreign terrorists , they may be kidnapped, killed, or tortured with impunity while still applying the laws in the case of citizens.

That only works if you believe the Rights were granted by the Constitution, not just protected by it.

If they were not granted by the Constitution, but by Nature's God, then every living person possesses those right.  

Now the case made easily be made that those who disregard those same Rights of others have also abandoned their claim to them.

Further, I don't believe a trial is mandatory for determining who has violated those Rights in others.  The trial will just prevent misuse by those in power.

The 2A could be stricken from the Bill of Rights without diminishing that right in the slightest.  It might even help, since there would be no confusion caused by quirky comma placement and a collective interpretation.

With the 9th Amendments in place, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is still held by the people.

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[tombogan03884]

That only works if you believe the Rights were granted by the Constitution, not just protected by it.

If they were not granted by the Constitution, but by Nature's God, then every living person possesses those right. 

Now the case made easily be made that those who disregard those same Rights of others have also abandoned their claim to them.

Further, I don't believe a trial is mandatory for determining who has violated those Rights in others.  The trial will just prevent misuse by those in power.

That only matters if you believe in a "living document" that encompasses the world.
Earlier courts clearly rejected that belief or the Dredd Scott decision would not have used the precedents that it did.
What you "believe", and accepted legal opinions of Supreme Court Justices aren't quite the same thing.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

That only matters if you believe in a "living document" that encompasses the world.
Earlier courts clearly rejected that belief or the Dredd Scott decision would not have used the precedents that it did.
What you "believe", and accepted legal opinions of Supreme Court Justices aren't quite the same thing.

I made some edits to my post which did not get in your inclusion..you work to fast =)

It is not believing in a "living document" but when I read what was written, I see nothing about citizens..just about the people.

I doubt I'm as well read as you in all this, but from what I have read, I don't see those rights limited in any way by citizenship.

I guess the discussion might be who is covered by the protection provided by the Constitution.

While I believe everyone in the world who has not acted to lose those right has them, I don't believe it is the job of those who believe in and support our Constitution to protect those rights around the world.

[tombogan03884]

I made some edits to my post which did not get in your inclusion..you work to fast =)

Sorry about that  

I guess the discussion might be who is covered by the protection provided by the Constitution.

While I believe everyone in the world who has not acted to lose those right has them, I don't believe it is the job of those who believe in and support our Constitution to protect those rights around the world.

That is where I was going with the idea .
They may be "given by God", but to a Godless regime that would not matter .
The Constitution  specifies who "the People" are in the first line of the preamble,
" We the People of the United States,"
In other words, those who are NOT "of the United States" aren't considered.