Posted on 06/08/2011 9:38:03 AM PDT by curth
BLITZER: How about gun control?
CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
C: Yes
B: Yes?
C: Yes.
B: So the answer is yes?
C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.
Video here:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/06/08/cain-gun-control-should-be-a-states-decision/
Don’t be silly. I’m using the same on-line dictionary the founding fathers did.
One might make the case that an accidental discharge of a firearm in a nightclub constituted a "threat to public safety" - and in a sense it certainly did - but not in a way that justifies prior restraint of a patron carrying a legal weapon into a privately-owned business.
Just to be clear - it is not a matter of "balancing" rights (of the individual vs. the state) but one of justifying the prior restriction of individual rights by a government entity, and doing so by reference to a high presumption against such interference.
Regardless, if the constitution, either Federal or state, can be ignored by government then there is no practical restriction of powers on the Federal or State government.
Actually it is not it has just been mis-adjudicated by the courts athat way. Up until the NFA it was not.
States simply cannot legislate in areas where Federal law is supreme or where individual liberties are both enumerated and incorporated. At the same time, our Founders argued for a Republic composed of sovereign states (and also argued over their relative powers - see Federalist #10). It has always been an imperfect union, made more so by our failure to restrain government to its legitimate powers, most frequently by our desires for unearned benefits and manufactured "rights", but that's another story.
With the right to self-defense so critical and so clearly enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the bar to any interference with that right must be set extremely high - higher in my opinion, than it is commonly set today. As others have noted, there is a very good reason why the 2nd Amendment immediately follows the 1st: it makes the 1st practicable and defensible by the citizenry. But any system of government, no matter how limited and prescribed, must depend ultimately on public order and enforceable police powers toward that end. That our own government has grown so wildly out of control does not diminish that fact, instead in my imagination it militates for a return to what our Founders had in mind in the first place.
And the bright clear line on that is not where your courts are setting it. These court "decisions" continually push into "infringement" territory with regularity.
Do States have a power to "regulate" my ability to shoot at my neighbors house randomly? Yes. Do they have a just power to say I can't own a gun unless I jump through the hoops of their arbitrary permitting process? No.
One creates a tort, the other action none. The old "your Right to swing your fist ends at my nose". This holds true whether I am attempting to keep and bear a .22 Derringer, a full auto Uzi, or an aircraft carrier.
If a felon is so dangerous they cannot be allowed free access to their Rights, why are we releasing them back into society? Further, having felons amongst us is even more reason for the rest of us to carry at all times.
Any more oft repeated and refuted pro-gun control arguments you wish to make?
So then we should all immediately jump on the Romney bandwagon because he's the frontrunner, right?
Yeah, supporting a front runner who's pimped abortion on demand, gay "marriage" and socialized medicine, who's a hypocrite to his religion - yeah, that's the ticket.
Bzzzzzzzzt ! Sorry, I'll take Herman. I doubt he meant states could breach the Second Amendment. When it's clear he does, I'll support someone else with principles. I don't like sluts like Romney.
My preferred model for state gun control would be that of Alaska, Vermont or (soon) New Hampshire. No licensing, fees, or registration required, just a police record free from felony because that is not, as you would have it, an "arbitrary" issue.
As for whether individuals ought to be able to own fully-automatic firearms, I am not presently aware of any US jurisdiction that allows this, but I would personally love to add a real AK-47 alongside my Romanian-made semi, and an M-4/A2 next to my AR-15. Sadly, the aircraft carrier will simply not fit in my yard.
No, I’m not saying support Romney. I’m not interested in Romney.
The answer is already in my post...
If the Founding Fathers meant for there to be laws restricting an American Citizen of their right to freely and without restraint posses arms they would have clearly written it into the text of the Amendment just like they did in these...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law
Amendment III
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment XII
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
And these...
AMENDMENT XIII
AMENDMENT XIV
AMENDMENT XV
AMENDMENT XVI
AMENDMENT XVIII
AMENDMENT XIX
AMENDMENT XXIII
AMENDMENT XXVI
The Second Amendment is absolutely clear here.
It is:
"shall not be infringed"
Not according to the rules of the common law
Not but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Not but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation
Not without due process of law
Not Congress shall have power to enforce this
Not The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation
Not unless they shall by law
Not Congress may by law
Not and shall not prevent
Not No law
Yeah, the Founding Fathers had every single opportunity for YEARS to put such a stipulation in the Second Amendment.
What do we see there?
Do we see the stipulations that are in many of the other Amendments?
No.
The "Bill of Rights" took seven months to write. This was in addition to the eleven years for the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was 116 days long. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.
There was plenty of time to create stipulations for the Second Amendment that would allow certain encroachments based upon existing or future law or laws. Such stipulations exist throughout the Constitution and it's Amendments, including the first ten.
The Second Amendment contains only one stipulation. "Shall not be infringed."
My conclusion is they damn well meant exactly not in the slightest scintilla. They were experts in what happens when such concessions are allowed. It is the absolute definition of "slippery slope."
Such concessions are the exact cause of being tangled in the 20,000 infringements spider web of laws, rules, ordinances and policies of today.
.
Laws made in contravention of the Constitution are no law. Do I really need to dig up that Jefferson quote again?
As for whether individuals ought to be able to own fully-automatic firearms...
Actually, this shows your ignorance loud and clear. And no... I'm not trying to be insulting in that assessment believe it or not. Class III toys are currently legal in most States. It's Federal law that makes it difficult to own. Title 18 Chapter 44 needs to go as it is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically Section 922.
[apologizes, learns, and never again makes a similar mistake]
Apologize - mistake? He said ‘yes’ twice, so he reiterated what he meant. If Anthony Weiner apologizes, do you forget what he did or said?
“I believe your Right to continue to throw out idiotic red herrings shall not be infringed. But it will be ridiculed.”
So you fail to address the salient point and believe that insults will carry the day.
He lost me with being for TARP before he was against it.
It's easy to say, truthfully:
"I was wrong. I was considering whether the federal government should be regulating firearms and rejected that option because it is a clear violation of fundamental God-given human rights and of constitutionally protected absolute legal rights. Not having previously discussed this topic in depth, I defaulted to the idea that regulating firearms was not an enumerated federal power so it must be a state responsibility. This was a clear error; ". . . shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, and I have upon further consideration recognized that states do not have the authority to regulate firearms either, not in the manner that is usually meant by the phrase "gun control" I'll defer to Ted Nugent on gun control - I've listened to him, and for citizens who have not been convicted of a felony, the trigger contol, breath control, and site control to hit your target strikes me as the best form of gun control.
In very simple terms, the enumerated powers in the Constitution circumscribe the authority that may be exercised by the federal government, and the Bill of Rights in addition to protecting certain God-given human rights from federal encroachment also limits the authority of state governments. As president, I will veto any bill that is not clearly within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and my Justice Department will protect all citizens from encroachment upon their rights by state or local government."
If Cain said those words, I would completely forgive his blunder and feel more positively toward him than I did before his most recent comments. I don't mind if he's on a learning curve - as long as he's learning.
I don't see a parallel between Cain, who I assume is not a gun owner, not having considered an issue in enough detail to recognize the state implications and Weiner not having considered whether advertising your physical shortcomings to 30,000 of your closest friends is gross and disloyal to his wife, nor do I see a parallel between correcting a poorly considered statement and lying repeatedly about behaving like a pervert repeatedly. Cain may not stay on my short list, but he's not necessarily off it. Yet.
I don't demand perfection from a candidate, just sincerity, learning, and respect for the rule of law, especially for the supreme law of the land.
All politicians misspeak, if it is one of ours we fight FOR them, if it is one of ‘theirs’ we fight against them. No one is perfect, I agree.
If their misspeak is deja vous, we learn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.