Thomas Woods & Kevin Gutzman question

[frag4yourlife]

Thomas Woods & Kevin Gutzman question

I am going to buy some books from either of the authors off Amazon.

I am doing a paper on gun laws and need assistance from forum and these books on the constitutionality paragraph for my assignment.

-Power point will show a slide with entire 2nd amendment on it.

-We are going to point out that gun enthusiasts often use the bill of rights and the 14th amendment to support their cause.

-What do gun regulators want or their beliefs on this? (Could someone help me and point this out).

-Here we are going to say we disagree with both groups. We are going to say they misinterpret the 14th amendment. It is supposed to enforce the civil rights act of 1866. It is supposed to make sure states can not have one set of laws for the white man and another for the black man. We are going to say bill of rights supposed to only make sure the federal government does not infringe on these rights. States are free to regulate it at. We are going to point out that the supreme court may have a different interpretation of the bill of rights than us. We are going to point out that it is better this way to because one day the supreme court good abolish all gun rights. We believe citizens should support the right to bear arms through state government instead.

My question is what books by these authors will help me (only allowed to use book sources) and what do gun regulators believe? Also am I right about gun enthusiasts using the 14th amendment?

 

[brushfire]

Thomas Woods & Kevin Gutzman question

I am going to buy some books from either of the authors off Amazon.

I am doing a paper on gun laws and need assistance from forum and these books on the constitutionality paragraph for my assignment.

-Power point will show a slide with entire 2nd amendment on it.

-We are going to point out that gun enthusiasts often use the bill of rights and the 14th amendment to support their cause.

-What do gun regulators want or their beliefs on this? (Could someone help me and point this out).

-Here we are going to say we disagree with both groups. We are going to say they misinterpret the 14th amendment. It is supposed to enforce the civil rights act of 1866. It is supposed to make sure states can not have one set of laws for the white man and another for the black man. We are going to say bill of rights supposed to only make sure the federal government does not infringe on these rights. States are free to regulate it at. We are going to point out that the supreme court may have a different interpretation of the bill of rights than us. We are going to point out that it is better this way to because one day the supreme court good abolish all gun rights. We believe citizens should support the right to bear arms through state government instead.

My question is what books by these authors will help me (only allowed to use book sources) and what do gun regulators believe? Also am I right about gun enthusiasts using the 14th amendment?

Definitely look up Alan Gura out on the forums. He took some flack from the NRA for trying to fully enable the 14th amendment (resurrecting the privileges and immunities clause, but had to settle for the due process). Yes, it was the 14th Amendment that imposed the 2nd upon all states.

I know they're not popular, but cato had this to say on the topic (with Alan Gura and Shapiro)



I cant really speak on behalf of regulators themselves, but they seem to herald Justice Breyer's BS take:

 

[angelatc]

Also look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime.

He points out the liberal case for gun control, then dismantles it with statistics. ALso, he's online so you can ask him questions.

 

[brushfire]

Forgot to mention JPFO's "No Guns For Negros"





ETA
I know you can only cite books, but I was hoping some of the videos would aid in your search for such books.

 

[frag4yourlife]

Definitely look up Alan Gura out on the forums. He took some flack from the NRA for trying to fully enable the 14th amendment (resurrecting the privileges and immunities clause, but had to settle for the due process). Yes, it was the 14th Amendment that imposed the 2nd upon all states.

I know they're not popular, but cato had this to say on the topic (with Alan Gura and Shapiro)



I cant really speak on behalf of regulators themselves, but they seem to herald Justice Breyer's BS take:

We don't believe the 14th amendment makes the bill of rights apply to the states. Supreme court may not interpret bill of rights same way as us.

Already have john lotts book. What about books from thomas woods and kevin gutzman?

 

[Southron]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

 

[Pericles]

We don't believe the 14th amendment makes the bill of rights apply to the states. Supreme court may not interpret bill of rights same way as us.

Already have john lotts book. What about books from thomas woods and kevin gutzman?

Actually, Article VI makes the BoR (except for the 1st Amendment, which explicitly states it is a restriction on the federal government only) apply to the states. The SCOTUS got that wrong back in 1833, too.

 

[frag4yourlife]

Actually, Article VI makes the BoR (except for the 1st Amendment, which explicitly states it is a restriction on the federal government only) apply to the states. The SCOTUS got that wrong back in 1833, too.

Gutzman and Thomas Woods say the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states...can someone help me refute Article VI?

 

[pcosmar]

Gutzman and Thomas Woods say the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states...can someone help me refute Article VI?

Did the States ratify the Constitution? If so, then they agreed to the provisions as the Law of the Land.

In fact, most states have wording in their state constitution very similar to the 2nd. (essentially in agreement with it)
Only a couple did not.

 

[frag4yourlife]

This proves your 1st statement to be incorrect.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods162.html

2nd statement about state constitutions is true.

 

[pcosmar]

This proves your 1st statement to be incorrect.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods162.html

2nd statement about state constitutions is true.

Well I have not read the books you refereed to. I have read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and some writings of the Founders. Their intention and purpose was clear.

Writing of Lawyers and "experts" since trying to diminish what they intended is not really relevant to me.

The second amendment was written as a protection of a Human Right. It applies to all. All humans everywhere.

 

[Southron]

Gutzman and Thomas Woods say the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states...can someone help me refute Article VI?

Check out the book I posted. Also I like New Views on the Constitution by John Taylor of Caroline for pre-14th arguments.

 

[frag4yourlife]

Well I have not read the books you refereed to. I have read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and some writings of the Founders. Their intention and purpose was clear.

Writing of Lawyers and "experts" since trying to diminish what they intended is not really relevant to me.

The second amendment was written as a protection of a Human Right. It applies to all. All humans everywhere.

bill of rights is a document that restricts the power of FEDERAL government

also tom woods and guntzman are big ron paul supporters..

its better for the states to decide because one day the SCOTUS might have a different interpretation of the bill of rights than the people and it could cause severe restrictions. also the supreme court is not elected...do u want unelected people decided for the ENTIRE country or each state deciding for themselves?

A lot of liberals think the 2nd amendment refers to only the national guard (militia).....if the SCOTUS misinterpreted it, it would hurt our right to bear arms.

ill check out the books rifleman

Also I think the founders kind've expected future generations to protect their gun rights. Their intent is clear. I agree.

i have the politically incorrect guide to the constitution on .epub (digital format). I am probably going to try to convert it to pdf and print it off or just buy it from amazon.

 

[pcosmar]

The Bill of rights was to protect the rights of the people.
Though the 1st amendment specifically named congress it is clear that these were the rights of the people that were protected from ANY government interference.

This is clear in the 4th 5th and 6th especially. These are all personal protections and the Federal Government had no law enforcement nor common trial duties.

These are protections of the rights of the people regardless of state or district.

 

[Pericles]

Why should I care what anyone "thinks", when I know what the Constitution says. As I am fluent in English, I do not need an interpreter.

 

[pcosmar]

Why should I care what anyone "thinks", when I know what the Constitution says. As I am fluent in English, I do not need an interpreter.

Exactly. It seems someone it always trying to twist it for their purpose..
State or Federal Government,, Neither has a right to search my home without a warrant.

And the right of the people to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says what it says.

 

[osan]

Thomas Woods & Kevin Gutzman question

I am going to buy some books from either of the authors off Amazon.

I am doing a paper on gun laws and need assistance from forum and these books on the constitutionality paragraph for my assignment.

-Power point will show a slide with entire 2nd amendment on it.

-We are going to point out that gun enthusiasts often use the bill of rights and the 14th amendment to support their cause.

-What do gun regulators want or their beliefs on this? (Could someone help me and point this out).

-Here we are going to say we disagree with both groups. We are going to say they misinterpret the 14th amendment. It is supposed to enforce the civil rights act of 1866. It is supposed to make sure states can not have one set of laws for the white man and another for the black man. We are going to say bill of rights supposed to only make sure the federal government does not infringe on these rights. States are free to regulate it at. We are going to point out that the supreme court may have a different interpretation of the bill of rights than us. We are going to point out that it is better this way to because one day the supreme court good abolish all gun rights. We believe citizens should support the right to bear arms through state government instead.

My question is what books by these authors will help me (only allowed to use book sources) and what do gun regulators believe? Also am I right about gun enthusiasts using the 14th amendment?

Try this:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bsi=90&tn=gun+control&x=0&y=0&prevpage=3

This is one of the best books available on the subject. I once had about 50 copies but gave them all away. The one on Abebooks is under $4 total cost. Get it. Read it. Digest it. Write your paper.

Good luck and best wishes.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Exactly. It seems someone it always trying to twist it for their purpose..
State or Federal Government,, Neither has a right to search my home without a warrant.

And the right of the people to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says what it says.

this is a huge frustration of mine. the constitution is written so clearly that only a person (or group of persons) bent on malcontent would twist it as much as it gets twisted.

i suppose it's human nature but it seems this is what happens: person has an agenda. person reads Constitution. person understands Constitution at face value, but refuses to accept that understanding. person twists, usually with great literary acrobatics, words of Constitution to to fit agenda.

always bear in mind that everyone has an agenda. i feel it a requirement of any liberty-oriented person to perpetually seek out and question what those agendas (and motives) are-- especially with one's self.

 

[jackers]

Sorry to dig this up from the grave, but I find it extremely important considering our current climate. This seems to be a hot button topic with us, but the truth is the truth. I'd actually prefer it, as originally understood. We might lose states like Il, NY, and Ct, but we'd have less restrictions elsewhere. Fifty laboratories for experimentation.

When the Supreme Court rules these Federal gun grabs constitutional, who will you petition against? Some unelected federal judges. Good luck with that...

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcrip...-and-2nd-amendment-is-for-progressive-losers/

 

[angelatc]

Sorry to dig this up from the grave, but I find it extremely important considering our current climate. This seems to be a hot button topic with us, but the truth is the truth. I'd actually prefer it, as originally understood. We might lose states like Il, NY, and Ct, but we'd have less restrictions elsewhere. Fifty laboratories for experimentation.

When the Supreme Court rules these Federal gun grabs constitutional, who will you petition against? Some unelected federal judges. Good luck with that...

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcrip...-and-2nd-amendment-is-for-progressive-losers/

Then you amend the Constitution.