The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

And we will have to fight to end this government then.
It can not be allowed to be changed.
It is not that guns are so important, but that a government that does not understand that rights bubble up from the people, and tries to restrict individual rights, then is a clear and present danger to all individual, and has to be utterly destoryed.

 

[progressive hunter]

The difference is the states already existed and the federal government did not, so the Founders were trying to entice the states to join. The Bill of Rights was to be accepted by the states, not by the people.
There was not some big public referendum on whether or not to join.
It was entirely to be decided by the state legislatures.

dude you are all over the place and should quit now,,,

doesnt matter who came first or why,, the constitution is the law of the land and states have to follow it just like the feds,,

 

[Rigby5]

so that means they have no power over the 2nd A either,,,

your answer is NO they cant override the bill of rights and that includes the 2nd A

The SCOTUS has consistently said they will interpret the 14th amendment, incorporation, as they see fit on an individual case basis.
Whether or not you and I disagree with them is irrelevant.
So far there is little proof that states are restricted from infringment of 2nd amendment gun rights.
The best are:

The Most Important Supreme Court Cases About Guns and Gun Rights

Gun rights are an extremely contentious issue in the United States, so there have been a lot of US Supreme Court gun cases. Gun rights advocates typically use the Second Amendment to argue that the right to possess firearms for self-defense is constitutionally protected. However, the Second...

www.ranker.com

Caetano v. Massachusettes​

• Year: 2016
• What it did: Overturned the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.
• How people reacted: The prosecutor and judge in Caetano's criminal case agreed that Caetano should be exonerated from the charges brought against her. However, the statute used to convict her initially remains on the books in Massachusetts.

This case isn't actually about firearms, but it is about the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment can apply to weapons other than those that were available at the time the Constitution was written. This ruling has cast doubt over whether states can ban tasers and other types of weapons which are not firearms.

McDonald v. Chicago​

• Year: 2010
• What it did: Struck down a Chicago ordinance which banned handguns.
• How people reacted: After the Court ruled in his favor, the plaintiff in the case said he was happy to be able to purchase a gun "to protect himself from the thugs in his neighborhood." The mayor of Chicago responded to the ruling by saying, "As a city we must continue to stand up...and fight for a ban on assault weapons...as well as crack down on gun shops."

McDonald clarified the ruling of Heller, saying that neither the federal government nor state governments can infringe on individual citizens' right to bear arms. The Chicago ordinance was declared unconstitutional.

...}

 

[Rigby5]

dude you are all over the place and should quit now,,,

doesnt matter who came first or why,, the constitution is the law of the land and states have to follow it just like the feds,,

No, the feds and the Constitution were deliberately inferior to the states.
They would not have signed on otherwise.
But it also was inevitable that individual rights would eventually need protection from the states.
It just was not true until the 14th amendment, and is still an ongoing process.
The SCOTUS has refused to make the blanket protection of individual rights you want.

 

[progressive hunter]

The SCOTUS has consistently said they will interpret the 14th amendment, incorporation, as they see fit on an individual case basis.
Whether or not you and I disagree with them is irrelevant.
So far there is little proof that states are restricted from infringment of 2nd amendment gun rights.
The best are:

The Most Important Supreme Court Cases About Guns and Gun Rights

Gun rights are an extremely contentious issue in the United States, so there have been a lot of US Supreme Court gun cases. Gun rights advocates typically use the Second Amendment to argue that the right to possess firearms for self-defense is constitutionally protected. However, the Second...

www.ranker.com

Caetano v. Massachusettes​

• Year: 2016
• What it did: Overturned the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.
• How people reacted: The prosecutor and judge in Caetano's criminal case agreed that Caetano should be exonerated from the charges brought against her. However, the statute used to convict her initially remains on the books in Massachusetts.

This case isn't actually about firearms, but it is about the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment can apply to weapons other than those that were available at the time the Constitution was written. This ruling has cast doubt over whether states can ban tasers and other types of weapons which are not firearms.

McDonald v. Chicago​

• Year: 2010
• What it did: Struck down a Chicago ordinance which banned handguns.
• How people reacted: After the Court ruled in his favor, the plaintiff in the case said he was happy to be able to purchase a gun "to protect himself from the thugs in his neighborhood." The mayor of Chicago responded to the ruling by saying, "As a city we must continue to stand up...and fight for a ban on assault weapons...as well as crack down on gun shops."

McDonald clarified the ruling of Heller, saying that neither the federal government nor state governments can infringe on individual citizens' right to bear arms. The Chicago ordinance was declared unconstitutional.

...}

yeah and SCOTUS never gets anything wrong,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

remember you yourself said after the 14th the states couldnt change or ignore the bill of rights,,

 

[progressive hunter]

No, the feds and the Constitution were deliberately inferior to the states.
They would not have signed on otherwise.
But it also was inevitable that individual rights would eventually need protection from the states.
It just was not true until the 14th amendment, and is still an ongoing process.
The SCOTUS has refused to make the blanket protection of individual rights you want.

depends on what youre talking about,, specifics matter,,

fed law comes before state law,,,

 

[scruffy]

depends on what youre talking about,, specifics matter,,

fed law comes before state law,,,

And my law comes before fed law.

Sorry lefties and righties, this boy does t care about you or your politics.

Scruffy only cares about his family, and he will do ANYTHING to protect them and keep them safe

 

[scruffy]

yeah and SCOTUS never gets anything wrong,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

remember you yourself said after the 14th the states couldnt change or ignore the bill of rights,,

The feds have no authority and no power over my weapons.

If they somehow manage to take one away from me, I'll have another one inside of 10 minutes.

**** the clueless incompetent feds. They can go to hell

 

[progressive hunter]

The feds have no authority and no power over my weapons.

If they somehow manage to take one away from me, I'll have another one inside of 10 minutes.

**** the clueless incompetent feds. They can go to hell

neither do the states,,

 

[Rigby5]

yeah and SCOTUS never gets anything wrong,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

remember you yourself said after the 14th the states couldnt change or ignore the bill of rights,,

Well in theory the states should also be created by individuals, and therefore inferior to individual rights, but the US was built backwards, by states dictated by royal decree.
But it is not the states that I am worried about now, since it is the federal government that is doing most of the infringing.
It is much easier to fix states later.
It is the federal infringement in firearms, drugs, health care, debt, etc., that is paramount right now.

 

[Rigby5]

depends on what youre talking about,, specifics matter,,

fed law comes before state law,,,

Except that there should never be a case where that comes up.
The federal government is supposed to only be restricted to those things states can not do themselves.
So it should never happen that both federal and state pass laws on the same thing.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well in theory the states should also be created by individuals, and therefore inferior to individual rights, but the US was built backwards, by states dictated by royal decree.
But it is not the states that I am worried about now, since it is the federal government that is doing most of the infringing.
It is much easier to fix states later.
It is the federal infringement in firearms, drugs, health care, debt, etc., that is paramount right now.

if pigs had wings their ass's wouldnt hit the ground when they jumped,,,

since you admitted the states cant change or ignore the bill of rights after the 14th was passed is all I needed from you,,,

now you dont have to claim different anymore,,

 

[Rigby5]

And my law comes before fed law.

Sorry lefties and righties, this boy does t care about you or your politics.

Scruffy only cares about his family, and he will do ANYTHING to protect them and keep them safe

But to keep your family safe, you need the greater strength the federal government can provide, such as FCC, FAA, the military, etc.

 

[progressive hunter]

Except that there should never be a case where that comes up.
The federal government is supposed to only be restricted to those things states can not do themselves.
So it should never happen that both federal and state pass laws on the same thing.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,

and you already admitted they cant infringe on the 2nd anymore than any other amendment,,

 

[Rigby5]

neither do the states,,

Well someone has to.
For example, do you want people selling guns to 10 year olds?

 

[progressive hunter]

Well someone has to.
For example, do you want people selling guns to 10 year olds?

who are you to dictate another persons rights??

 

[Rigby5]

if pigs had wings their ass's wouldnt hit the ground when they jumped,,,

since you admitted the states cant change or ignore the bill of rights after the 14th was passed is all I needed from you,,,

now you dont have to claim different anymore,,

No, I did not say that the states can't change or ignore the bill of rights after the 14th was passed.
What I said was that after the 14th was passed, the SCOTUS was authorized to protect individual rights from abuse by the states.
That does not mean the Bill of Rights exactly, but also may mean more and wider protections than the Bill of Rights.
Like the Bill of Rights says nothing about the individual right of Privacy, yet the 14th amendment does imply the states can't infringe upon that individual right any more.
The problem with the 14th however, is that the SCOTUS has to decide on an individual basis, because they refuse to make any generic or blanket interpretations on it.

 

[Rigby5]

who are you to dictate another persons rights??

I did not say me, but someone.
And I was implying that since it can't be the feds, then it has to be either states of municipal.

 

[Ame®icano]

View attachment 645144

Funny, he said that four years after he left the bench. And while on bench, at no point during his tenure did the Supreme Court address the question of whether the Second Amendment confers an individual or collective right. Second, where is the second part of the Amendment he was discussing in NPR interview. Oh, it's not shown, because it doesn't suit the narrative.

You know, he also said this...

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope. He's correct. Study it.

He is wrong as any person who HAS studied it knows