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/
Shall not be infringed, means just that. Just because you or the governments wants to have control over others, does not make those actions constitutional.
Wow! Extremely disappointing...
It’s a birth Right from our Creator ... And no government can issue or take it away.
I have a feeling Cain misspoke on this. Meaning he does not fully understand this issue.
The SCOTUS' correct decision would have been to write SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED across the lower courts ruling and nail it to the prosecutors forehead. As it is, it left wiggle room large enough to drive Eric Holder through...
The word “infringe” is usually defined something to the effect of: “encroach upon contrary to the laws or rights of others”. Unless you believe that the founding fathers were applying a definition to the effect of “encroach upon in the slightest scintilla”, Mr. Cain’s comments seem wholly reasonable.
Yes but individuals are Sovereigns too. That is why we have Rights. Cain did not recognize it.
Why do people tie themselves in knots to uphold government over-reach regarding their Rights? Are you afraid of being TOO free? Of having TOO much responsibility for your actions?
Accordingly, you can't allow people to cry "fire" in a crowded theater, or to drive on whatever side of the road they want and still maintain ordered liberty. Do such laws detract from your rights - or help preserve them?
The difficulty is in trusting the courts to draw the correct lines, and that is where all has gone to hell during the past 100 years. The answer, I believe, is in strict Constitutional interpretation, honoring the plain meaning of language and ending the use of law as a means of social experimentation where judges become scientists and we are all their lab rats.
it’s not unconstitutional for a state to make a law that says you are not allowed to walk downtown openly carrying two 45s hanging off each hip or that you must be at least 18 years of age to buy a 357 handgun no matter what you say..
Read my post #87.
Well that says everything. Thanks for outing yourself as a Romneybot.
Use a better dictionary for a more accurate definition of “infringed”.
You need a permit to build a place of worship.
And why would you consider licensure to be ‘infringement’?
Do you believe that people should be permitted to operate a motor vehicle without a license or insurance?
You’re an idiot.
Take your silly canard and shove it. It's Brady Bunch logic at it's worst.
How does my owning a 30 round magazine harm anyone else? How does my peaceful carry of ANY arms at all create a tort?
The "plain meaning" of "shall not be infringed" hasn't changed.
You need a permit to build a place of worship.
Which has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Nor should you need said permit if you truly owned said property. Your willingness to come up with such a piss poor example to justify your beloved government interference in our lives speaks volumes about you.
And why would you consider licensure to be ‘infringement’?
Because it creates an arbitrary standard whereby those Rights could be infringed. It's a Right, not a "privilege" that requires "permission".
Do you believe that people should be permitted to operate a motor vehicle without a license or insurance?
I believe your Right to continue to throw out idiotic red herrings shall not be infringed. But it will be ridiculed.
Your seems reasonable is why we have Obamacare. It is the increamental stealing of our rights that has happened because it seams reasonable. Reasonable to me is shall not be infringed.
One has Nascar, on private property, no laws against that. There are no seat belts, no speeding limits, your references are to public areas.
One assumes risk on private property.
As for the limits of guns, it is already against the law to harm someone or kill them. Having a gun isn't a crime.
It reference to an actual recent event. Let's take football player Plexico Burress. He was sent to prison in New York for 3years I think. Why? Because he accidentally shot himself on private property. He might be stupid, but he shouldn't go to prison.
It is gun laws like that that are unconstitutional.
State governments can in fact regulate public safety, and proscribe individual actions accordingly. Without such an ability, there would be no order or safety for anyone. The problem is that we have spent the last 100 years expanding government power without any relationship to rational purposes or to the plain meaning of Constitutional language.
Accordingly, any law that proposes to regulate the size of a magazine is likely unconstitutional (and it had better be, as I own a whole lot of high-capacity mags) because there is no reasonable argument that such magazines make an otherwise lawful weapon more dangerous in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. But if you are a convicted felon under a restraining order and the state refuses to issue you a pistol permit, that is within their duty to protect the rights of all other citizens within the state.
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.