Herman Cain says Gun rights are a state issue. #fail

[CaptainAmerica]

The states have no more right to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights than they do our 1st or 4th or 5th.

PRECISELY that. In california just a month ago a city council banned people from having "bible studies" in their homes because they didn't have permits. This is the same exact topic...and states/cities should NOT have a right to regulate such unalienable rights which reside with the people.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

I probably disagree with a lot of people on this the forum on this.
I still believe states don't have the right to remove possession of firearms and never will.

+1776 (because i'm all out of rep)

and after reading this thread, i think most here agree with you! simple and well put.

 

[Tarzan]

Can we stick with the CAIN IS AN IDIOT theme of this thread... please?

We have gone through this issue about the bill of rights and we will not resolve it here. Plus, it has already been discussed argued to exhaustion. We don't need to do it again here.

A vast majority believe gun rights are not a state issue and that the 2nd protects their gun right. Let's just go with that, show them the Cain quote and let them get pissed at Cain.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Spaming this.

Ignore the discussion, and get the link out there!

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Can we stick with the CAIN IS AN IDIOT theme of this thread... please?

We have gone through this issue about the bill of rights and we will not resolve it here. Plus, it has already been discussed argued to exhaustion. We don't need to do it again here.

A vast majority believe gun rights are not a state issue and that the 2nd protects their gun right. Let's just go with that, show them the Cain quote and let them get pissed at Cain.

but Tarzan, shouldn't we be co-opting the Cain supporters??

 

[Tarzan]

but Tarzan, shouldn't we be co-opting the Cain supporters??

Yes. But we won't get them and we would lose 'gun rights' people by supporting Cain's position that the 2nd amendment is a state rights issue. If the gun rights people think Cain wants to take their guns they may jump ship and look for someone else (RP).

Cain will eventually implode on his own just like Bakmann & Parrot. We do not need to actively participate in his demise or it will make RP look bad. We need to be sure the information is out there... but, don't make it an attack or promote that it comes from RP supporters. Cain has plenty of skeletons that will lose the support of tea party types.

WE don't need to say "Cain is an idiot... look at this"... just put the facts out there and people will figure it out for themselves... just like MB and RP.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Yes. But we won't get them and we would lose 'gun rights' people by supporting Cain's position that the 2nd amendment is a state rights issue. If the gun rights people think Cain wants to take their guns they may jump ship and look for someone else (RP).

Cain will eventually implode on his own just like Bakmann & Parrot. We do not need to actively participate in his demise or it will make RP look bad. We need to be sure the information is out there... but, don't make it an attack or promote that it comes from RP supporters. Cain has plenty of skeletons that will lose the support of tea party types.

WE don't need to say "Cain is an idiot... look at this"... just put the facts out there and people will figure it out for themselves... just like MB and RP.

okay. i was confused. i didn't see where you were coming from. thanks for the clarification.

 

[Tarzan]

okay. i was confused. i didn't see where you were coming from. thanks for the clarification.

You bet... sorry my first post was not clear. The last thing I want to do is tick off a heavily armed, female Ron Paul Supporter!!!

 

[idiom]

What is clearly lacking from Cain is an understanding of what a threat the government poses. That is why he doesn't grasp the housing bubble or why the Fed is bad or why no government body can restrict its establishers ability to unestablish it.

 

[frag4yourlife]

I actually made a topic about this in bearing arm sections.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320371-Thomas-Woods-amp-Kevin-Gutzman-question/page2

 

[johnrocks]

I like the idea of the 14th that incorporated States under the Bill of Rights, I don't like the idea of government;just because it's a damn State; being able to take my rights away.

Another reason not to support Cain ;for me anyway.

 

[frag4yourlife]

ya but the supreme court may have a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment than everyone else this can be dangerous and could cause severe restrictions in the future. I predict under such a scenario many states could either secede or just not follo anything that is unconstitutional.

also the constitution originally was a document of negative rights, not positive

 

[Brett85]

Herman Cain is right on this issue. The 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from banning and regulating guns, but the states still have the right to regulate guns. The Supreme Court made it clear in the Chicago case that a city or state government doesn't have the right to actually ban handguns, but it can still regulate the sale of guns.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I probably disagree with a lot of people on this the forum on this.
I still believe states don't have the right to remove possession of firearms and never will.

I agree with you. The 2nd Amendment with Article 6 seems to me that the 2nd A obviously prohibits the States from banning firearms. To me it's so blatant that I don't get this argument that it took the 14th to make it a common right. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand? The 2nd Amendment says shall not be infringed. It doesn't say by who, it just says shall not. I read that as shall not by anybody. Taken with Article 6 supremacy clause I read the 2nd A as a positive prohibition against the ban on firearms imposed also on the states. The 10th Amendment only leaves open those questions the US Constitution does not address. State's rights do not apply here by any measure.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Herman Cain is right on this issue. The 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from banning and regulating guns, but the states still have the right to regulate guns. The Supreme Court made it clear in the Chicago case that a city or state government doesn't have the right to actually ban handguns, but it can still regulate the sale of guns.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The 10th Amendment only applies to powers not retained by the Federal Government exclusively. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to see that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and the Article 6 supremacy clause gives the Federal Government jurisdiction over this clearly enumerated power. No 14th Amendment argument necessary, or wanted.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The states have no more right to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights than they do our 1st or 4th or 5th.

No, actually the 1st is different. "Congress shall make no law." It doesn't say that the state legislatures shall make no law, just Congress. Mind you, I would rather that the 1st Amendment be a "general" right to all citizens that prohibited even State infringement, but that's not how the Constitution is written. I'd be open to fixing it, but as it stands I'm pretty sure that all 50 States have State Constitutional provisions guaranteeing the freedom of speech and religion, so it is not top of the priority list.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The federal government protecting us from the States infringing on gun rights is like having a fox guard the chicken house. I have much more faith in my state government than Washington.

Ultimately it's bad for those in states that support and defend gun rights and good for those in states who would otherwise ban guns.

We have come to believe that all federal laws trump state laws. So now federal gun laws are stricter than the freer states would otherwise allow and more lenient than our more tyrannical states. The end result is a mediocrity imposed on all the states IMO.

You also have to balance the 10th Amendment against Article 6. The way it's supposed to work WRT the 2nd Amendment via Article 6 is that Congress can make laws preventing the States from infringing, but cannot make laws allowing them to infringe. Don't forget that the Article 6 supremacy clause gives Congress authority over all enumerated powers. Powers are also responsibilities, and I read the 2nd A as a positive responsibility given to the Federal Government to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The 10th Amendment only applies to those things NOT covered by Article 6, and Article 6 covers all powers and responsibilities listed within the US Constitution.

 

[Southron]

Don't forget that the Article 6 supremacy clause gives Congress authority over all enumerated powers. Powers are also responsibilities, and I read the 2nd A as a positive responsibility given to the Federal Government to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is where our main disagreement lands. I don't want D.C. protecting me from NC anymore than I want the U.N. protecting me. I fear D.C. much more than I fear Raleigh. The supremacy of the federal government on Constitutional issues is a large reason people ignore their state governments.

I also think states' rights supporters are mischaracterized that because we don't want federal interference that we don't support individual rights. One could make the same argument that if you don't support establishing new constitutional republics abroad, that you don't believe Arabs have rights.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This is where our main disagreement lands. I don't want D.C. protecting me from NC anymore than I want the U.N. protecting me. I fear D.C. much more than I fear Raleigh. The supremacy of the federal government on Constitutional issues is a large reason people ignore their state governments.

I also think states' rights supporters are mischaracterized that because we don't want federal interference that we don't support individual rights. One could make the same argument that if you don't support establishing new constitutional republics abroad, that you don't believe Arabs have rights.

Where I'm coming from is it doesn't matter what I want, it's what the Constitution says. I can't violate the Constitution just because I know I can trust the states to better secure the right to bear arms. I can't just ignore the Article 6 supremacy clause whenever it becomes inconvenient. I'm a Constitutionalist. I'm here to restore the Constitution, not to try a different philosophy of government. I figure we put government back on the Constitution first, and then we can figure out what we might need to do to amend it and make it better.

 

[Southron]

Where I'm coming from is it doesn't matter what I want, it's what the Constitution says. I can't violate the Constitution just because I know I can trust the states to better secure the right to bear arms. I can't just ignore the Article 6 supremacy clause whenever it becomes inconvenient. I'm a Constitutionalist. I'm here to restore the Constitution, not to try a different philosophy of government. I figure we put government back on the Constitution first, and then we can figure out what we might need to do to amend it and make it better.

My beliefs on the Constitution aren't new or utopian. They were commonly held in the 19th Century by men such as John Taylor of Caroline and John C. Calhoun.