Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2134802" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>Nope! Specious argument. Your argument would be valid only if it were, say, Delta Airlines requiring that you submit to search and seizure, and forfeit your right to keep and bear arms, as a condition of boarding their airplanes. In that case you could just mosey on down the concourse to, say, gun-totin' and liberty-lovin' Southwest Airlines and take your travel business to them, the same as many of us do when we spot the idiotic "no guns" sticker on a business door. You will note, however, that it is the federal government, not the airline, subjecting you to illegal search and seizure. Does any provision of the Bill of Rights contain an exception in such cases in which you have an alternative means of going peaceably about your business? Does any provision of the Bill of Rights contain an exception in the case of travel by air?</p><p></p><p>Here you are falling prey to exactly the statist indoctrination I bemoan above. First explain to me how the TSA search and seizure complies with: 1) the First Amendment, 2) the Second Amendment, 3) the Fourth Amendment, and 4) the Fifth Amendment (not to mention the Ninth and Tenth.) Then (assuming you are successful with the previous step) expound to me exactly which enumerated power of the federal government permits it to place federal agents in every airport (each of which falls within the sovereign territory of a single state) in the first place. Then, while you're at it, define exactly which enumerated power authorizes the federal government to restrict aviation as a whole; to regulate aviation at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right. Now, to show the opposite of the argument above:</p><p>Even if you successfully find an enumerated power lurking somewhere in a forgotten corner of the Constitution permitting the federal government to regulate travel by air (the interstate commerce clause is the usual specious citation), such regulation <strong><em>still</em></strong> would have to comply explicitly with every single restriction of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments. Ain't no legal way around it.</p><p></p><p>I shake my head at the way putatively free people accept the ever-increasing demands to comply with ever-expanding federal laws inexorably tightening federal restrictions on every aspect of their day-to-day lives -- without once perceiving the irony that the very agency forcing their compliance in the very act of doing so blithely declines to comply with the law governing <strong><em>it</em></strong>: the Constitution of the United States. <strong><em>That</em></strong>, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of illegitimate, tyrannical, unjust, lawless government.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2134802, member: 5183"] Nope! Specious argument. Your argument would be valid only if it were, say, Delta Airlines requiring that you submit to search and seizure, and forfeit your right to keep and bear arms, as a condition of boarding their airplanes. In that case you could just mosey on down the concourse to, say, gun-totin' and liberty-lovin' Southwest Airlines and take your travel business to them, the same as many of us do when we spot the idiotic "no guns" sticker on a business door. You will note, however, that it is the federal government, not the airline, subjecting you to illegal search and seizure. Does any provision of the Bill of Rights contain an exception in such cases in which you have an alternative means of going peaceably about your business? Does any provision of the Bill of Rights contain an exception in the case of travel by air? Here you are falling prey to exactly the statist indoctrination I bemoan above. First explain to me how the TSA search and seizure complies with: 1) the First Amendment, 2) the Second Amendment, 3) the Fourth Amendment, and 4) the Fifth Amendment (not to mention the Ninth and Tenth.) Then (assuming you are successful with the previous step) expound to me exactly which enumerated power of the federal government permits it to place federal agents in every airport (each of which falls within the sovereign territory of a single state) in the first place. Then, while you're at it, define exactly which enumerated power authorizes the federal government to restrict aviation as a whole; to regulate aviation at all. Right. Now, to show the opposite of the argument above: Even if you successfully find an enumerated power lurking somewhere in a forgotten corner of the Constitution permitting the federal government to regulate travel by air (the interstate commerce clause is the usual specious citation), such regulation [B][I]still[/I][/B] would have to comply explicitly with every single restriction of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments. Ain't no legal way around it. I shake my head at the way putatively free people accept the ever-increasing demands to comply with ever-expanding federal laws inexorably tightening federal restrictions on every aspect of their day-to-day lives -- without once perceiving the irony that the very agency forcing their compliance in the very act of doing so blithely declines to comply with the law governing [B][I]it[/I][/B]: the Constitution of the United States. [B][I]That[/I][/B], ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of illegitimate, tyrannical, unjust, lawless government. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom