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. Last post because I refuse to continue a conversation with someone who cannot think. I understand why you are reluctant ...

View Poll Results: Who Should Protect/Guarantee our 2A rights?

Voters
129. You may not vote on this poll
  • Federal Government

    88 68.22%
  • State Government

    41 31.78%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 110

Thread: Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government

  1. #91
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Last post because I refuse to continue a conversation with someone who cannot think.
    I understand why you are reluctant to answer a few questions.

    Your position is without merit because your "sources" you seem to think are some sort of authority have NOTHING to do with your position.
    Perhaps you can elaborate as to how Supreme Court opinions regarding the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, specifically the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the position that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

    You say that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the BOR yet the 14th amendment IS IN THE BOR! A thing inside a thing IS the thing.
    It is widely acknowledged that the first ten Amendments are considered the Bill of Rights. Is the 14th Amendment one of the first ten? Just asking...

    You say that the concept of Federalism was established by the Constitution yet the Constitution does NOT SAY THIS.
    Unbelievable.

    You weasel, waffle, and duck and dodge to try to salvage your position on the basis of the Federalist Papers, yet the Federalist Papers are NOT THE LAW and are NOT THE CONSTITUTION. They have no legal weight at all.
    Do you know why the Federalist Papers were written? They were propaganda pieces to induce the people of New York to ratify the Constitution. They explain, in detail, the concepts and reasons for every part of the Consittution, including the concept of states rights, which I quoted from Federalist 45.

    You keep mentioning Cruickshank as if it is some sort of Constitutional talisman yet Cruickshank has been thoroughly discredited.
    Cruikshank hs never been overturned. In fact, it was quoted in the recent Heller opinion. Adamson is even more to the point. I suggest you read Frankfurter's concurrence. He thoroughly debunks the 'incorporation' fallacy.

    You spout alot about how no court has the ability to "make laws" yet, again, you seem to think that Cruickshank is some sort of "law" that the Federal Government has to abide by.
    Wrong again. Lower courts MUST adhere to higher court opinions. The Cruikshank opinion is simply that, an opinion on a specific case. The people can then determine how to respond. The Judicial Branch does not trump the Legislative and Executive Branches.

    IOW, your thinking is so muddled I don't believe that EVEN YOU know what the heck you're talking about.
    No, no clue..

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    Senior Member Array bbqgrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In Delaware, East of the Mason Dixon Line.
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Last post because I refuse to continue a conversation with someone who cannot think.
    Take a breath, as your stated occupation is attorney I know you have the ability to cohesively argue please un-knot your knickers and return to the conversation.




    Cheers
    "To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT

    Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  4. #93
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    Neither can protect them or should.

    When a person or entity helps you keep something, if you can't keep it without their help, THEY control that thing. If it would disappear in an instant on their say-so that thing really isn't yours and isn't under your control... it is theirs and under their control.

    You only have those rights that you yourself can protect. If you can't do it yourself you have at best privileges granted by a benefactor... which can be revoked at that benefactor's whim.

    Everything that most Americans view as their "rights" only exist because the government hasn't seen fit to eliminate them. They really are mere privileges that can disappear with the stroke of a pen. Unless of course you are willing to kill and die for them and die reviled as a criminal and traitor.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  5. #94
    Member Array newmenu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    SE Texas
    Posts
    85
    I voted federal, for obvious reasons but I think both should be accountable.
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

    NRA member/TSRA member

  6. #95
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Texas has some of the finest gun laws and justifiable self defense laws in the nation. If you don't like the laws in your state, change them!
    To say that Texas has the finest state gun laws in the nation supports my comment that states don't respect our fundamental rights.

  7. #96
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    To say that Texas has the finest state gun laws in the nation supports my comment that states don't respect our fundamental rights.
    I didn't say that. I said Texas has some of the finest gun laws. And if you think your state has bad laws it is your responsibility to help change them. Whining to a judge is inappropriate. It is a judge's mandate to weigh the facts with the law. The judge has no power to change the law. Only you can do that.

  8. #97
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    I didn't make a choice as I believe it is the responsibility of both the Federal and State governments. Both should use the Constitution as the basis for all law and the courts should read the law literally and not allow personal belief to interfere. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen in far to many cases. This is when the people must step in and let their representatives know they can be replaced.
    Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

  9. #98
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Cruikshank hs never been overturned. In fact, it was quoted in the recent Heller opinion.
    This is what is called "weaseling."

    You always make a big point about the fact that Cruikshank has never been "overturned", thereby implying that it's position regarding the 14th Amendment therefore continues to be valid. In fact, Cruikshank's position on the 14th Amendment has been thoroughly repudiated by numerous subsequent cases and is not considered a correct analysis. Also, as you know perfectly well, the only reason that it has not been directly overturned with regard to its position on the 14th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment is because that specific issue has not been presented to SCOTUS (as the Court recognized in Heller). There are lots of old cases that have never been directly overturned that are, nonetheless, universally recognized (at least among those who actually have the relevant training and credentials) as no longer being good law--Cruikshank just happens to be one of them on the issue of the 14th Amendment.

    You also continuously refer to the fact that Cruikshank was cited and quoted in Heller, again, the intended implication being that it has continuing validity with regard to the point being discussed. In fact, however, the only times the Heller opinion cites or quotes Cruikshank favorably is on issues other than the 14th Amendment. Moreover, in the single place where the Heller opinion does discuss the 14th Amendment, the Court questions the continuing validity of Cruikshank's analysis.

    Making statements with the intention to deceive based on the false implications of those statements is called "weaseling."

    You know all of this, but you continue to point to Cruikshank anyway, because it supports what you wish the Constitution says--even though that position on the 14th Amendment is thoroughly discredited and repudiated in actual jurisprudence.

    Relying so heavily on such a thoroughly rejected jurisprudential theory is indicative of the strength of your arguments. They are laughable.

  10. #99
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by bbqgrill View Post
    Take a breath, as your stated occupation is attorney I know you have the ability to cohesively argue please un-knot your knickers and return to the conversation.




    Cheers
    Sorry, it's a hold-over from work. I've got counsel on the opposite side of a matter who is ALSO ducking, dodging, weasling, waffling, shucking & jiving, and just about anything else you can call it doing to me what SD is doing here.

    They say one thing, then when you prove that what they said is as leaky as a sieve, they shift positions and claim that's not what they said or meant.

    Case in point:
    Do you know why the Federalist Papers were written? They were propaganda pieces to induce the people of New York to ratify the Constitution. They explain, in detail, the concepts and reasons for every part of the Consittution, including the concept of states rights, which I quoted from Federalist 45.
    I question how "propaganda pieces" can be understood to mean ANYTHING as regarding what the Constitution means. The Federalist papers as "propaganda" are as legally binding as leaflets passed out on street corners. They are NOT law. They are NOT legal opinions. They are NOTHING. Yet, SD seems to think that the Federalist Papers are somehow binding on the Federal government as to what the Constitution means and how it regulates the government.

    The Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means. The Constitution created the SCOTUS (and judicial branch) and spells out its role. Which is to determine what the laws passed by the legislative branch really mean.b To dothat, SCOTUS can look at historical documents but it is NOT bound by those documents. It is SCOTUS' constitutionally created job to say what the Constitution means. The Federalist Papers mean nothing in this context and if SCOTUS disagrees or finds that the historical sources aren't accurate or are distinguishable they can disregard those sources.

    Then there's this piece of drivel:

    Perhaps you can elaborate as to how Supreme Court opinions regarding the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, specifically the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the position that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.
    and this one:

    It is widely acknowledged that the first ten Amendments are considered the Bill of Rights. Is the 14th Amendment one of the first ten? Just asking...
    Firstly, SCOTUS has extended the protections within the bill of rights to the people through the 14th amendment. It had no choice but to do so. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't a result of activist judges, it was a requirement that the SCOTUS interpret the 14th amendment as it was intended to be implemented. The CRA isn't the creation of the courts. It is a law passed by Congress so "activist judges" weren't involved except to become the final arbiters who had to bow to the will of the legislature.

    The next bunch of pap is the "only the first ten amendments..." comment. Uhh, did I miss where Congress retitled the Bill of Rights? Or where they added some sort of page break after Article 10? I didn't think so because the entire document seems to be titled "Bill of Rights" and that's where the 14th amendment is found. Duly ratified and supported by SCOTUS and the American people.

    SD even supports my position by his statement that the 14th was enacted to grant the newly freed slaves the same rights as whites. I wonder how SD can believe that the 14th doesn't apply to the States while at the same time believe that the individual States have no ability to pass laws making former slaves back into slaves. I mean, if the 14th doesn't apply to the states, why does he believe that the states have to abide by it?

  11. #100
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,536

    Propaganda pieces

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post

    I question how "propaganda pieces" can be understood to mean ANYTHING as regarding what the Constitution means. The Federalist papers as "propaganda" are as legally binding as leaflets passed out on street corners. They are NOT law. They are NOT legal opinions. They are NOTHING.
    Precisely!!!! But folks of a certain world viewpoint hang on every word of the Federalist Papers and more as if it was of biblical significance.

    Next time you see tv broadcasts of speeches at The Federalist Society meetings or sponsored events, keep in my that they are presenting ONE viewpoint, and not necessarily the prevailing law. They are attempting to shape the law in the future, through advocacy and propaganda (perfectly OK), but the positions presented are not the law.

    And, a personal interpretation of a case pulled out of thin air and out of context, without professional understanding, isn't the law either.

  12. #101
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I didn't say that. I said Texas has some of the finest gun laws. And if you think your state has bad laws it is your responsibility to help change them. Whining to a judge is inappropriate. It is a judge's mandate to weigh the facts with the law. The judge has no power to change the law. Only you can do that.
    So seeking protection of my rights through the judicial branch of the government is just being a whiner. It's inappropriate. I suppose it's so much more noble and appropriate to whine in front of a state judge about how the same laws violate the state constitutions.

    No wonder we can't protect our rights! Sounds like making it impossible to protect my rights from do-gooders in the majority is precisely your intention.

  13. #102
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Sorry, it's a hold-over from work. I've got counsel on the opposite side of a matter who is ALSO ducking, dodging, weasling, waffling, shucking & jiving, and just about anything else you can call it doing to me what SD is doing here.
    I asked you some simple questions. That you choose to evade, obfuscate, elude, circumvent is evidence that you are ill prepared to address the issues.

    They say one thing, then when you prove that what they said is as leaky as a sieve, they shift positions and claim that's not what they said or meant.
    Can you provide evidence that I have shifted positions? This ought to be amusing.

    Case in point:


    I question how "propaganda pieces" can be understood to mean ANYTHING as regarding what the Constitution means. The Federalist papers as "propaganda" are as legally binding as leaflets passed out on street corners. They are NOT law. They are NOT legal opinions. They are NOTHING. Yet, SD seems to think that the Federalist Papers are somehow binding on the Federal government as to what the Constitution means and how it regulates the government.
    And where did I say the Federalist Papers were binding? I explained to you that Madsison, Hamilton and Jay worte eloquent justifications and their reasoning behind the Constitution. Do you not understand what I am writing?

    The Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means.


    The Constitution created the SCOTUS (and judicial branch) and spells out its role. Which is to determine what the laws passed by the legislative branch really mean.
    Did they cover the Constitution is law school? Perhaps you could post Article 3 and explain in your own words what 'law an equity' means. I assume they covered that. It would also be interesting for you to provide the section in the Constitution that supports your assertion that the Court has the power to 'determine what the laws passed by the legislative branch really mean.'

    It is SCOTUS' constitutionally created job to say what the Constitution means.
    Can you post the section of the Constitution that grants that power to the Court? Or will you continue to evade, elude, duck and dodge the question?

    The Federalist Papers mean nothing in this context and if SCOTUS disagrees or finds that the historical sources aren't accurate or are distinguishable they can disregard those sources.
    Yes, the five robed oligarchs can pretend to rule at their whim. Fortunately, they are just a co-equal branch of government and their opinion is no more imortant than that of the Legistalive Branch.

    Firstly, SCOTUS has extended the protections within the bill of rights to the people through the 14th amendment. It had no choice but to do so.
    Yesterday, you you thought the Fourteenth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights!

    Of course, you are wrong again. Otherwise, you wouldnlt be whining about the Court 'incorporating' the Second Amendment.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't a result of activist judges, it was a requirement that the SCOTUS interpret the 14th amendment as it was intended to be implemented.
    You do understand the difference between the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch, right? An act of the Legislature, signed by the President is law. It had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

    The CRA isn't the creation of the courts. It is a law passed by Congress so "activist judges" weren't involved except to become the final arbiters who had to bow to the will of the legislature.
    The only thing you have posted so far that make any sense.

    Uhh, did I miss where Congress retitled the Bill of Rights? Or where they added some sort of page break after Article 10?
    I think you are weak on your Constitutional history. In fact, grade school children can identify the Bill of Rights as being the first ten Amendments. Are you sure you don't want to simply acknowledge your error?

    I didn't think so because the entire document seems to be titled "Bill of Rights" and that's where the 14th amendment is found.
    Yet, you press on... You think the Constitution seems to be titled the Bill of Rights?

    Duly ratified and supported by SCOTUS and the American people.
    Are you now claiming the Constitution was ratified by the Supreme Court? And the American people? Let me correct you explicitly. The Constitution and the Amendments are ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    SD even supports my position by his statement that the 14th was enacted to grant the newly freed slaves the same rights as whites.
    Wrong again. No part of the Constitution grants rights. The Fourteenth Amendment ensured United States citizenship for newly freed slaves, who were not citizens of a state.

    I wonder how SD can believe that the 14th doesn't apply to the States while at the same time believe that the individual States have no ability to pass laws making former slaves back into slaves.I mean, if the 14th doesn't apply to the states, why does he believe that the states have to abide by it?
    Perhaps you can identify a former slave for us that might be affected by your proposed law. Oither than that, I' not sure what you point is. The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the applying the Bill of Rights to the States. Or maybe I should say the first eight Amendments so you don't confuse it with the entire Constitution.

    By the way, can you post the Tenth Amendment for us?

  14. #103
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Precisely!!!! But folks of a certain world viewpoint hang on every word of the Federalist Papers and more as if it was of biblical significance.
    You are aware that it was me who used the phrase propaganda pieces. And I'm certain you know that propaganda means the spreading of ideas for the purpose of helping a cause.

    And, a personal interpretation of a case pulled out of thin air and out of context, without professional understanding, isn't the law either.
    You mean the understanding of a LSAT/GPA of 135/2.7?

    Actually, the understanding of the plain words was delivered in a Court opinion in Adamson, Cruikshank, Presser, and Barron. Or are you denigrating Supreme Court justices in youe sweeping concept of 'professional understanding?'

    As to the Federalist Papers, Madison, Hamilton and Jay had no professional understanding either, right? Their intent to implement their principles an ideals should be disregarded because they do not conform to your particular views.

  15. #104
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    So seeking protection of my rights through the judicial branch of the government is just being a whiner. It's inappropriate. I suppose it's so much more noble and appropriate to whine in front of a state judge about how the same laws violate the state constitutions.

    No wonder we can't protect our rights! Sounds like making it impossible to protect my rights from do-gooders in the majority is precisely your intention.
    What is you opinion if we turn this around? The Legislature passses laws that favor gun owners (like how it is now.) But the Judicial Branch 'overturns' gun friendly laws. Would you still want the judiciary to trump the will of the people? Or is it only when they agree with your views?

  16. #105
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466

    14th Amendment

    The purpose of the 14th is simple. It was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It has been very much debated over the years, and still is today. But to me it seems prety simple.
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Is the strongest reason for 2A is to protect against tyranny in Government?
    By Thanis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 08:52 AM
  2. Sign the petition today – together we can protect our Second Amendment rights.
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 31st, 2008, 09:46 PM
  3. Put down your guns the Government will protect you!!
    By airbornerangerboogie in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 6th, 2007, 09:48 PM
  4. If Government can't protect driver's info why is gun registration a good idea?
    By Dakotaranger in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 1st, 2006, 05:36 PM
  5. Senate Votes to Protect Second Amendment Rights During Emergencies
    By dr_cmg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Search tags for this page

government infringing on our rights

,
government is the protector of 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
,
how far should the government protect our rights for safety
,
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.