Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government
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; Originally Posted by Rob P.
Having the individual States define our rights is contrary to the Constitution.
The Constitution grants us the right to interstate ...
View Poll Results: Who Should Protect/Guarantee our 2A rights?
- 129. You may not vote on this poll
February 16th, 2009 08:38 PM
Well said, Rob P
Well said. Some folks here need to get out of the 19th century and fantasy interpretations and into the 21st century and reality.
Originally Posted by Rob P.
We are NOW one nation. There is no going back without extreme calamity. The rights enumerated in the BOR must apply to all regardless of what state you live in. There is no losing position with such an interpretation. The other way around has in the past and will in the future result in states disrespecting individual rights.
February 16th, 2009 08:42 PM
You missed two answers in your Poll..... the Judicical Branch, and
------------------------------- US -----------------------------------------
that's who needs to really make sure our rights are protected.
While you are debating the glory of the Fedl Govt... you might also debate the fact that in the 21st Century we still have a Natl Guard that is controlled by the STATES, another element of the Constitution.... and State Rights are also in there... .....
including the right to secede from the Union.
February 16th, 2009 09:24 PM
No, we are still 50 independent, sovereign, United States. Your misperception and continued grasping for that which is not so is not helpful in solving our common problems. I don't know why you want to dissolve the states but rest assured, it will not happen.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
You still don't get it. The rights enumerated DO apply to all. They are God given rights. The Bill of Rights ensures the Federal government will not infringe on those rights. Why is that concept so difficult to understand?
There is no going back without extreme calamity. The rights enumerated in the BOR must apply to all regardless of what state you live in.
Huh? That is not our nation. We are a nation of United States. The name of our nation is the United States of America. You might want to erase our history and certainly you can lobby for the dissolution of the Union, but you won't get much support.
There is no losing position with such an interpretation.
The people make up the governments of the states. It is the responsbility of the people do protect our rights. We are the government.
The other way around has in the past and will in the future result in states disrespecting individual rights.
Perhaps you have never read the Federalist Papers. Maybe that is why you don't understand our system of government or why it is necessary.
Here are some excerpts from Federalist 45:
Hopyard, if you are still reading this most important treatise, please note the passage I have bolded:
The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.
The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order,
improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Again, why do you want to destroy the great nation for which the Founders shed their precious blood?
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
February 16th, 2009 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Eagleks
You can't be serious.
Can you say," squished like a bug. " Even if the question of secession had not been settled 150 years ago, there is no way it could happen in today's world. SPLAT. There is no state that could stand up to the Federal government.
February 16th, 2009 10:23 PM
Utterly inconsistent nonsense
HMMM. Then why in the world do you persistently come here to argue that it is perfectly OK for the states to violate those rights and moreover argue that the Federal government has no role in protecting those rights against the individual state's interest?
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
You are very inconsistent in both your views and your arguments. That's OK, we all are inconsistent and we all hold self contradictory views on various subject, but how in the world can the rights apply to all (as you state) because they are G-D given, but then argue it is OK for the states to violate those rights?
Do you expect the citizens of the states to actually physically need to fight to retain their rights? What a ridiculous position.
February 16th, 2009 10:28 PM
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
February 16th, 2009 10:49 PM
Without the threat of exactly that, what is to prevent either the state or federal government from making us all slaves? Do you expect that your rights will retain themselves?
Originally Posted by Hopyard
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
February 16th, 2009 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by Hopyard
He didn't say that it was right for states to do so, but that it was in their power. Governments are not particularly known for being especially moral.
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
February 16th, 2009 11:19 PM
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the federal government. Our founding fathers were wise. Less federal government is better government. I voted state.
February 16th, 2009 11:41 PM
Why would any government want to protect the individual rights of citizens? It serves no purpose to them. We are in a constant battle, one side trying to protect its rights, the other tryin to usurp them.
Its the individual that is responsible for protecting his rights. When the government passes a law they further restrict your rights. Sometimes this is good, but its the people that must make sure the government never gets to powerful.
February 17th, 2009 12:01 AM
I say Federal; for some reason it makes more sense to me.
Duty, Honor, Country...MEDIC
!!!¡Cuánto duele crecer, cuan hondo es el dolor de alzarse en puntillas y observar con temblores de angustia, esa cosa tremenda, que es la vida del hombre! - René Marqués
February 17th, 2009 12:34 AM
Do you remember why there was such a bitter rift between the Northern and Southern states that resulted in the civil war? Secession was certainly addressed, but never settled.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Still, that's a history topic, and probably beyond the scope of this conversation. I've said my piece earlier.
RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.Defensive Carry Search TipsStep 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.
February 17th, 2009 12:55 AM
I'll bet no one thought that 13 little colonies could stand up to the mighty British Empire either.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
I, for one, am glad that our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor against overwhelming odds.
I'm not calling for a current secession or anything I am just pointing out what some people call impossible.
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.
February 17th, 2009 03:33 AM
The rights should be protected on a federal level by we the people. The federal level is the baseline by which all the states must play by, and if they don't, then it's not valid, however, this should be "self-governed" by us, to ensure the safekeeping of our constitutional rights.
February 17th, 2009 07:58 AM
I didn't vote, because the correct option wasn't listed.
Who should protect our rights?
Well we should.
We can do that by being educated intelligent voters, quite a rarity these days.
Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.
By Thanis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 08:52 AM
By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 31st, 2008, 09:46 PM
By airbornerangerboogie in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 6th, 2007, 09:48 PM
By Dakotaranger in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 1st, 2006, 05:36 PM
By dr_cmg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 11:09 PM
Search tags for this page
. discuss how the federal government intervened to in the state of texas with regard to the protection of civil rights a
government infringing on our rights
how does our government defend gun regulation?
how does the government protect our rights
how each branch of the goverment protects our rights
in what way was this amendment originally only binding on the federal government?
should the federal goverment have any say on the second amendment
what governments were made to protect our rights
what is the legal source of federal government to protect civil rights?
which government focuses on protecting the rights
who should protect the rights of the children? state or federal government ?
Click on a term to search for related topics.