"--- if a state official, pledged to support the US Constitution, attempts to pass state legislation contrary to federal law, why, that would be treason, would it not? Well then, you and I are in agreement.
Not really. You still advocate a States 'right' to prohibit guns, or most anything else.
Moral majority rule is not the american way, paulsen.
I'm not an advocate.
Of course you are. Every day anyone can see you here advocating the States 'power to prohibit'. Your denial is ludicrous.
You cannot find one instance where I advocated that states prohibit guns. Not one. Your claim is ludicrous -- actually, it's a lie.
Are your words just below a lie? - In them, you claim that states can prohibit guns, & ignore the 2nd.
I simply said the state has the power to regulate/prohibit guns PROVIDED it wasn't against the state constitution. I stand by that.
The CA State constitution has no RKBA's provision. You claim they can therefore prohibit 'assault weapons', despite the clear words of our 2nd Amendment. Again, your denial is ludicrous.
Yep, California can do that. The second amendment protects you from federal infringement, not state infringement. The Ninth circuit has ruled this way in a half-dozen cases.
There you go again, claiming/advocating that States can ignore the US Constitutions BOR's. - How daft.
-- We live in a representative republic whereby our constitutionally elected representatives write the rules.
Agreed. -- They can 'write reasonable rules' under constitutional bounds.
Most of these "rules" have a basis in morality.
Of course they do, but they cannot infringe on our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
They can infringe on those rights as long as you are accorded due process in a court of law. Then your right to life, liberty, or property is controlled by the state.
Again, -- you claim/advocate that as long as we get due process in a fair trial, rights can be "controlled by the state". Ludicrous. -- "Due process of the law" is being ignored in the writing of these 'laws' that prohibit socalled 'evil property'. The State has no delegated power to so "control" our life, liberty, or property.
Your advocacy of prohibitions on guns, drugs, etc; -- infringe on those rights. -- And you cannot deny it.
Daft? Oh my. That's the way the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified. The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.
As a matter of fact when Madison was drafting the original constitution, he inserted a clause which would have applied some of the U.S. Constitution's BOR to the states. Is was rejected.
It wasn't until the 14th amendment that some of the BOR became applicable to the states. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the states with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment.
Read this and educate yourself on your constitution.
"Again, -- you claim/advocate that as long as we get due process in a fair trial, rights can be "controlled by the state". Ludicrous"
WHAT? If you are found guilty of murder in a court of law the state may take your life. Or your liberty. WTF are you babbling about that "the State has no delegated power to so "control" our life, liberty, or property." They sure do.
I'm expecting a more intelligent post from you the next time around. If you choose to remain ignorant on the basics, I don't have any more time to educate you.