LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNeither. WE have to protect our rights. Every government designed will take away the rights of the citizens if the citizens let them.
This is a discussion on Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Neither. WE have to protect our rights. Every government designed will take away the rights of the citizens if the citizens let them....
Array
Neither. WE have to protect our rights. Every government designed will take away the rights of the citizens if the citizens let them.
Bend the knees, smooth is fast, watch the front sight.
Array
Article VI
...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ....
I believe that clearly makes the federal govt. the protector of the Constitution & BOR.
The Second Amendment ...... Because crime SHOULD be a hazardous occupation.
If you want to piss off a conservative, lie to him.
If you want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth.
Array
Alaska has the same issues of Florida? Do they have the same issues with crime, or other issues?Originally Posted by Tom G
OP: It is your job to protect your rights. They won't protect themselves. So start where you can do the most good, with your local governments, and work your way up.
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
www.Lonelymountainleather.com
Array
I voted state but it should be federal. But i do not want the federal government to get involved at this point in time cause it would be quite week and not very good interpretation. I am content to drive down the street and lobby my state rep or senator who has more of a say than my representatives at the federal level.
I guess what i am saying is that (atleast the way i see it) the federal government will make laws that will make more states more restrictive then the ones it will loosen up on so it would be a net loss for the Americans in general.
Array
I don't think "Protect" so much as "Stopwith them".
Uphold and defend, not modify and interpret. If the founding fathers could come back, there would be an awful lot of pimp slapping going on at Capitol Hill, and I don't doubt that some people would be shot outright as traitors to the Republic.
On hiatus.
Hit my limit for speculation, the sky is falling, and gun owners fighting amongst themselves.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!
Array
Yes, it is our responsibility as citizens, but, Constitutionally- it is a states rights issue.
Array
and with a anti gun President, for now N Me my state is my present best bet.
However with every election cycle that can change, and not every state has has pro gun Representatives (yes it is their own fault).
So for the good of the majority, and as we already have in the "Bill of Rights" a written guarantee at the federal level. Despite how violently the liberal left may distort and disagree.
This is our one true document proclaiming your, mine and our right, that of the individual, to keep and bear arms with out restrictions based upon cosmetics, cost, availability, or any other limit they may attempt to impose. This as it is written must be enforced despite any hardships, we are all responsible for this document and need to keep it whole!
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
Array
We the people have to be the leader to protect our rights from all forms of government.
Array
Having the individual States define our rights is contrary to the Constitution.
The Constitution grants us the right to interstate commerce. It grants us the right to travel. It grants us the right to the privileges and immunities of the several states. These are NOT "states' rights" they are federal guarantees.
On top of that, the BOR specifically prevents the gov from taking our weapons and the supreme court has upheld that (Heller) it is an individual right. The 2nd has not been incorporated via the 14th yet but that is in the works and will be done soon.
Firearms legislation is NOT a matter of "states rights." It was a right ceded by the States to the Federal Government by the signing and ratification of the Constitution.
Array
You need an option for neither.
Mel
The Ethics of Liberty
LewRockwell.com
The Survival Podcast
How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
Array
Your description is flawed. No constitution in the United States, including the US Constitution, grants rights to anyone for any reason. The constitutions grant certain authorized powers to the government body they are written for, with certain exceptions explicitly described in both the federal and state constitutions. No government body in the United States possess rights.
The Second Amendment has always been understood to be a right of the people, not a right of the "state". No court case indicates otherwise. Having witnessed the states overall move towards much friendlier laws concerning firearms and firearms ownership without any "assistance" from the 14th Amendment, I'm quite happy with the 2nd Amendment's lack of "incorporation".On top of that, the BOR specifically prevents the gov from taking our weapons and the supreme court has upheld that (Heller) it is an individual right. The 2nd has not been incorporated via the 14th yet but that is in the works and will be done soon.
-B
RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.
Defensive Carry Search Tips
Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.
Array
I'm still not following this logic. If the states are not infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, where is the downside with the federal courts defining case law that prevents them from doing something they're already not doing? On the contrary, states are infringing our rights to keep and bear arms. How would federal case law preventing them from doing that be a bad thing for the country or any state it affects?
The right is independent of the government and its laws. If you believe in a free society, then you should oppose any government that would infringe upon your most fundamental rights. It would seem to me you would support any means to protect your rights. Just philosophically, what is wrong with the federal government doing it if the states won't?
Array
Because the federal government will screw it up, accidentally or on purpose. Imagine this. The feds create a national CHL. They then set the rules the states have to follow. One is you can't carry in bars but you can carry in restaurants that have a bar in them. There are three things this does. One, it might make it nicer for me in Ohio as we can't carry at Applebees. Now we can. But, it makes it stricter in Indiana as they can carry in bars. Also, this makes people in states like Vermont and Alaska, where they don't need CHLs to carry, illegal without the CHL.
Two more things. Who in the federal government do you want making the laws on this? The democratic leadership we have now? I sure don't. What agency is going to regulate them? The BATFE? With their track record? I sure don't want them in charge. Plus, all gun grabbers would have to focus on is the federal government to get stuff passed. Right now the states are in charge and there are very many more state reps they have to bribe to get changes than federal reps.
it only took two years for the House, Senate and the Presidency to swing to the anti side.
Bend the knees, smooth is fast, watch the front sight.
Array
"Incorporation", or case law declaring that the provisions of the Bill of Rights in question apply to the States as well as to the federal government, was only hinted at in the 1890s (in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago), and only truly began in the mid 20's with Gitlow v. New York (1925). Keep this in mind.
Slavery was a legal practice in the United States from the date of the Constitution's ratification, and the practice wasn't officially outlawed until 1919 with the passage of the 18th Amendment. The courts condoned slavery for almost 150 years. After this, the United States condoned "Separate but Equal", an invention of the Courts, I should add, until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The courts condoned institutionalized segregation for 60 years. Women could not vote in the vast majority of United States until the passage of the 19th Amendment. The courts condoned barring women from voting for almost 150 years.
Do you have any guarantee that the Courts won't reverse their opinion on "incorporation"? Do you have any idea how many long-standing positions the Supreme Court has reversed in its history?
The shift from less to more friendly laws towards firearms and firearms ownership is already in play, and has been for a very long time. States have been moving in this direction for nearly a century, a quarter of that before "incorporation" ever came to life, and three quarters of that after it came to life and without the Second Amendment ever being "incorporated".
Think about that.
-B
RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.
Defensive Carry Search Tips
Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.
Array
Well said. It is perhaps the biggest mistake possible to trust the federal government. Even if they go your way today, they may go the other tomorrow. At least if the states have their say, you could move if it came to that.
Mel
The Ethics of Liberty
LewRockwell.com
The Survival Podcast
How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
