[VIDEO] The Southern Avenger - Gunning Down the Constitution 3/4/10

[purplechoe]

Why the Supreme Court overturning Chicago's gun ban would damage the Constitution and increase the power of the federal government.

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution

 

[Reason]

hmmm

 

[jabf2006]

I like Jack. This is a topic that I had always been a bit confused about and helped clear some of it up.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

I think I disagree on this one. I think gun laws should not be intruded on by state or federal. He does make a point about retarded or insane people.

 

[Reason]

I like Jack. This is a topic that I had always been a bit confused about and helped clear some of it up.

same

 

[RSLudlum]

I tend to agree with his arguement. If Mass has universal health insurance which would be unconstitutional under the federal constitution but legal under their own constitution, is it not an example of a state expressing some sense of soveignity under the federal system per the 10th amendment? And if this isn't the case then why does my state's constitution under Article I, section 20 state the following:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

Is this not redundant if the federal 2nd amend. applied to citizens of all states?

 

[Original_Intent]

I disagree with SA on this one, and I think that is a first.

I think some of the Bill of rights were strictly limitations on the federal government.

i.e. "congress shall pass no law...." for example.

However, the 2nd amendment reads "...the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now even though it is not IN the Consitution, I think there are some common sense limits such as criminals and insane persons (who we already deprive of a lot of rights, including life, liberty and property), I think shall not be infringed means what it says - it is not ONLY a limitation on federal government, it is a DIRECTIVE that federal government shall not allow the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed - by anyone, state or local government or individuals.

Of course, private property owners have the right to "firearms free" as a condition on their own property.

Same with many of the rights - could a state government force you to house soldiers? Can a state force you testify against yourself? Can a state set aside your right to privacy? (OK, they CAN but the Constitution should prevent it.)

 

[robertwerden]

The association of opening the door for heath care or abortion is unjustified since neither is in the bill of rights to begin with.

The constitution specifically says owning guns is a right. To be worried that a federal court re affirming the language of the constitution is a threat to liberal progressive agenda is unfounded.

The right to bear arms surely was to prevent tyrants from taking over again. The duty to fight off the tyranny would never fall to the mentally challenged or under aged or criminals. The duty to fight tyranny would fall to contributing members of the community, who would be enlisted to fight by the militia. The militia would not select a person who could not perform the job.

It is well established that adults are chosen for such endeavors so children would not have the right to bear arms even in the old days, then again in the old days you may have been considered an adult at a younger age than the legal age of 18 today.

Criminals who have been deemed a threat to society should be incarcerated, so unless the courts are purposely allowing adults who are a danger to society to roam the streets, then even those who have formally been convicted of a felony and who have paid their debt to society should also have the same rights as we all do.

The mentally challenged who are not a threat to society or to them selves and are living free lives in the population have the same rights as we all do. They are more likely to need a firearm to protect them selves from attacks because they have a disability. Mentally challenged people seem to be targeted for robberies specifically because they are mentally challenged.

I see no threat to our Constitution from the supreme court ruling the states have no right to deny citizens the right to bear arms.

 

[The Patriot]

Sorry, if the bill of rights is a list of negative rights/natural rights, than no government has the right to infringe upon them. The Constitution doesn't say that congress shall not abridge to right to bear arms but rather that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. If this is the case, local police have the right to execute a search without a warrant as they aren't obligated to follow the 4th amendment. I have no problem with the Supreme Court affirming our natural and constitutional rights as that is the proper function of the Supreme Court.

 

[Matt Collins]

How does the supremacy clause play into this?



.

 

[catdd]

I get a little tired of hearing how everyone with a felony conviction should be automatically deprived of 2nd amendment rights for their entire life. I believe that if someone did not abuse the second amendment by using a gun in the commission of a felony then that right should remain intact.
The state should decide something like this based on the severity of the crime.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I think I disagree on this one. I think gun laws should not be intruded on by state or federal.

Of course it shouldn't be. The question though is: Who is to decide that? If you give the federal government any power to overturn gun rights in one direction, they will take that power at some point and use it for the other direction. I'd rather have the states control it, because if one states fucks up legislation, you can still move to another.

 

[payme_rick]

Okay, read article VI earlier... isn't the understanding of article VI a strong case that the state should follow what is in the bill of rights, which is in the constitution? or am I just too new to this and am missing something? honest question, not a smart-ass remark...

"and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution....

send me a private message, gunna be away from computer all weekend, that seems like a strong point...