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/
10th says ‘powers not delegated’
A state cannot ‘opt out’ of the 2nd.
IN the language of the time “well regulated” meant “well trained” and/or “well equipped.” As in a well regulated clock.
The second amendment is very clearly written. What is it that you don’t understand?
But labelling Cain a ‘boutique candidate’ and how we can only win with Romney is the name of the game.
Conservative are use to seeing this sort of political activism from the Leftists, it doesn't work with us.
And how’s that workin’ out for ya? Last I checked McCain handed Obama the election.
Why don’t we appoint a real conservative?
There is no such thing as constitutional gun control regardless of what you think is sensible.
I didn't vote for McCain.
Why don’t we appoint a real conservative?
Maybe we will; maybe we won't. A pizza guy/radio talker with limited knowledge and even less experience is not that "real" conservative. That much is obvious.
I think you are mixing the two-powers granted by the people to the federal government, other powers not so defined are retained by states or the people, however, the 2nd states a right ever so clearly; so it is not a power to be relegated to the feds, the states, or any government entity, it is a defined, unalienable natural right (to arms/self and commu ity defense)by freemen, and therefore ought to be and is limited only by the people (as individuals) who retain it.
Best
Can a state opt out of, restrict, or put limits any other amendments?
One could say that however I believe it is not clearly understood by our current crop of communist agenda wanna-be's that have been "educated" in the liberal public schools and colleges.
In that environment we see a great deal of relativism where the phrase "shall not be infringed" is relatively interpreted as "mostly, unless I want to." They want to believe they can remove that nail from the plank and hammer it back in at a location that allows them to go ahead and severely infringe a Citizen's Second Amendment Rights as they see fit. THEN they point to their law as say "see, that is reasonable and common sense."
There is FAR too much focus on The Second Amendment in regards to it being cherry-picked for "abuse by excuse." The anti-American control addicts, otherwise known as communist agenda liberals, will abuse Second Amendment rights on ANY excuse.
Here is an example that makes it clear.
Example... You are a hot headed little you-know-what in your early 20's and caused a commotion and bit of a panic at the movies. Lots of folks leave "immediately" and as a result a kid gets a twisted ankle. Theater management calls for medical assistance to cover their liability, paramedics see what happened, call the local cops, cops arrest hot head for incitement to riot, public endangerment, injury to a minor, etc, etc.
End result, felony.
Does the hot head get a lifetime infringement of their FIRST Amendment rights or their SECOND Amendment rights?
The crime committed was one of vocalizing a false statement as factual.
But does that prevent said hothead from making a political speech? Ten, twenty, thirty years after the fact?
It is the very same tool used to commit the original crime, right?
Or for that matter does the hot head get a lifetime infringement (banishment) for ANY of their enumerated constitutional rights OTHER than the Second?
Nooooo, not that! The ranks of slimy politicians would be decimated by such equal justice.
No no no, only the Second Amendment Right to be A-R-M-E-D is the recipient of such blatant un-American and un-Constitutional attack.
The attack (infringements under color of law) on American Citizens Second Amendment Rights in which it is clearly and specifically stated "do not infringe here" is about as an un-American act as any I can think of, be it perpetrated by a thief stealing a citizens firearms or a thief depriving an American Citizen of their Unalienable Rights "under color of law."
Both should be the ones in prison, not the poor smuck that flipped a coin in order to determine who will pay the bill at a restaurant. Or to hold a yard sale without first obtaining a business license. Or put an incorrect date or salary of a home loan application.
Or on a subject a bit closer to us all, not forking over piles of cash for ObamaCare.
There is no reason or indication that any regulation restricting OR allowing under certain conditions the possession of arms. There NEVER should have been any "concealed carry" permits as that only legitimizes the previous law or regulation restricting or infringing on a Citizen's Second Amendment rights.
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?
There never was any original intent for laws restricting (infringing) OR allowing (concealed carry "permits") regarding arms.
It is a quite futile effort to convince me that what I see in front of me is not what was meant.
However, I am confident that some mealy-mouthed, smiley-faced BS artist of various occupation will be firmly convinced that I am wrong or that they can change my mind.
Or even a pretty good Presidential candidate, Herman.
.
Well, why mention the State and a “well regulated militia?” When written it's generally thought that the 2nd Amendment was meant to maintain a ready force of volunteers in order to reduce the need to have a large standing army.
Yet, it also refers to the People (or people, depending on the version.) So there's a certain dichotomy within the Amendment.
But yes, clearly the Heller case swung the pendulum back to the “People” and away from “a well regulated militia.” However, I suppose what I, and a few others, don't understand is why both terms are included in the Amendment. Why isn't it simply, “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”?
So you voted for the Huckster or for Romney and you believe they are the best we can do? Seriously?
This is disheartening news. I had hopes for Mr. Cain. I hoped he would be as conservative a candidate as Palin but without the negatives. But this (again?) demonstrates at least a lack of preparation on another issue (like the “Right of Return” gaffe). IMO
Look at the 10th Amendment MNJohnnie posted. The way I read the Amendment, it seems to indicate, basically, states have a right to regulate anything they want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with any of the rights expressed in the Constitution. Thus, a state can’t limit one’s free expression of speech and/or religious belief. But a state CAN regulate something not expressed in the Constitution, like abortion for example. (at least until the SC decided to butt into that, which is now why a Right of the Unborn Amendment is pretty much necessary to truly put that issue to rest, or at least another ruling that extends Constitutional rights to the unborn, but I digress).
The point is, the States don’t have the power to regulate what they wish, regardless of the Constitution. They can only regulate what hasn’t been specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And the 2nd Amendment is obviously IN the Constitution already, so, Q.E.D.
Good bye Herman.
Pay special attention to the phrase "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". Then re-read the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amd.
Then just go sit in a corner and think about how stupid it is to support gun control.
Only to those with a room temp IQ or possibly English as a second language.
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.