Gun obsession

[Tejada]

[Tejada]

[John Galt]

well he argued against it because no where in the constitution does it give the government the power to regulate arms, so therefore the amendment is superfluous. and frankly of course hamilton's worry came to pass, we now have a list of amendments and look to them for protections, but in reality, the constitution shouldn't even need that; it's unconstitutional even without the amendment. but amendment 2 exists, and so does amendment 14, so now it's illegal for states to even do this

[Tejada]

[Tejada]

Or put more simply: you, as Hamilton did, think the BoR actually eroded the freedom of the people?

[John Galt]

It's quite clear they did. No where in the Constitution is the government given the power to regulate guns. And yet, here we are talking about it. And the defense against it is that we have specifically pointed out that guns are not to be infringed upon, and so that should be that. But here we are, arguing about it. And the argument is hinging on what some people hilariously are reading into the amendment, when in truth the Constitution itself already provided for it. The people even mention this in the oft forgotten tenth amendment which again states that the government has no right to interfere with guns buy stating that the enumeration of rights does not mean that powers not prohibited are granted, in fact, only expressed powers are granted. And yet here we are, talking about it. So why was Hamilton wrong?

[Tejada]

[SmithSmith]

The more actual question- can there be a solution to America's gun problems? With 12,000 to 15,000 people being killed by guns each year...you know...the country has to start somewhere. Anywhere.

[Winchester]

[Ben Huh]