Cain: Gun control should be a “state’s decision”

HotAir ^ | June 8, 2011 | Jazz Shaw

[Dead Corpse]

Your post #143 goes a good deal further than that. You are obviously trying to MAKE the case for arbitrary limitation on the Second Amendment. This goes beyond mere supposition of what the SCOTUS may or may not do.

Your concern is noted.

[taraytarah]

Cain is not suggesting relinquishing the right-to-arms to the states. He is maintaining that laws regulating their use remain with the states. And notice that he does not say "cities", ie. Chicago.

What isn't to understand about existing state control you have over your firearms? MN Gun Laws

Do you not want MN to retain sovereignty over these rights?

You are twisting Herman Cain's words to dismiss his legitimacy as a Constitution-loving candidate. Promoting a distorted agenda of the competition is an easily-detected tactic.

[ConservativeMind]

“I do not think any citizen should have to obtain permission from the sheriff or police to buy, own or carry a weapon.”

ORLY? What about ex-felons? They are still “citizens”. If the government cannot restrict, then felons can do whatever they want.

[ConservativeMind]

So you believe felons can’t have guns restricted, too? Either government can or it can’t restrict guns.

[Dead Corpse]

What isn't to understand about existing state control you have over your firearms?

They violate the Second Amendment's express prohibition.

Do you not want MN to retain sovereignty over these rights?

No. I want my RKBA infringed by no one. Not by a wanna-be tyrant a thousand miles away, nor one only thirty miles away.

[Americanexpat]

Thry are not already? ;>)

[Durus]

If a Felon has done his time do they have the right to free speech? The right to worship their chosen god? The right against illegal search a seizure? Do they have the right of due process?

If a felon is too dangerous to have their rights returned then they should still be in prison. If they have paid their debt to society then they should have the same rights of everyone else.

It's not like gun laws are anything but a restriction on the law abiding anyway. These not laws are not designed to make anyone safe, but to increase the power of government.

[Durus]

They dole out our rights as if they were privileges bestowed upon us by a bureaucrat.

[ClearCase_guy]

There are two questions: What do I want? What do I believe the Constitution says?

1) What do I want? It doesn't matter. I can say I'm a sensible person, but my personal wishes here just don't matter.
2) What do I believe? I believe the Constitution says that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

There is an amendment process. If people don't like the 2nd, they can try to change it.

[OneWingedShark]

>I’m pretty certain that the the 2nd Amendment allows a state to prohibit convicted felons, extremely young children, psychos, and the mentally impaired, from possessing a firearm.

I’m pretty sure not.
Let us consider just ONE of those you list: “convicted felons.” Now, if one serves their sentence then, so far as the law is concerned, the debt they had to pay to society is paid in full; correct? If it is not the case, then never able to pay their debt they are at worst relegated into an involuntary servitude (to their State masters) and at best a second-class citizen wou has no rights but only the privileges the state deigns to bestow upon him.

How can such a system be Morally Just, much less provide “equal protection of the law”?

[OneWingedShark]

>The way I read the 1st Amendment, the right to free speach is absolute. I don’t see any exceptions for so-called fighting words; yelling “fire” in a crowded theater; pornagraphy of any kind; or and other exception.

That’s because the whole “fire in a crowded theater” was incorrectly reasoned; the correct reasoning would to be to allow civil-legal responsibility for injuries (or death) to be placed upon the shouter rather than declaring that criminal-law could do what it is forbidden: restricting the freedom of speech.

[GOPJ]

Should freedom of the press be a ‘state’ decision? If you don’t hate liberal elites yet, you’re just not paying attention. They are the totalitarians.