Replies

Liberals and socialists have been arguing against our Constitutional rights for years. -- They want the power to adjudicate criminality, -- to prohibit behavior [and dangerous objects] before they become a 'problem for society'.

This is not a new concept, and you can find similar laws throughout American history. State laws regulating the sale of alcohol appear in the Colonial and early Republic periods because alcohol abuse was a "problem for society."
Laws regulating sexual conduct appear in the Colonial period, and remain commonly accepted as proper actions of government into the 1960s.

Yep, State and local governments have routinely infringed on our basic rights under the socialistic/statist theory that the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress.
You've bought into this mindset, imo, and history proves it doesn't work.

Your argument would be stronger if you knew some of the history involved.

I'll match my knowledge of history with yours any day.

My master's degree is in history.

Big deal. Hundreds of thousands have 'Mastered in History'. Your mastery of our Constitution is sorely lacking, - as we see from your inept arguments.

I've read thousands of pages of newspapers of the Colonial, Revolutionary, and early Republic period. I've read hundreds of books of the time. Your statements about the Constitution show a fundamental ignorance of the basic materials in question.
You clearly have a libertarian understanding of American history--but America's history isn't libertarian.

You clearly think that calling me fundamentally ignorant and a 'libertarian' somehow discredits my facts regarding our Constitution. Get a new line.

Reread the 10th. - It clearly says that States are constitutionally prohibited [limited] in powers. - Then read the 14th. - Same thing.

Here's the text of the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Powers that are not explicitly given to the federal government (and it wasn't a long list), and that were not explicitly prohibited to the states (and that was an even shorter list), --

Do you deny that list included our Bill of Rights?

-- are reserved to the States, or to the people. Had they left out "are reserved to the States" you might be able to make your claim. But "reserved to the States" is pretty darn clear.

So is Article VI, which also clearly says that officials and "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"

States have powers, - limited by the supremacy of the US Constitution. --- The 2nd is a complete prohibition on state actions infringing on our right to own and carry arms.

The Fourteenth Amendment also doesn't say what you think. The provision that you are thinking of says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This isn't a complete prohibition on state action that you want to imagine.

You are simply imagining it isn't. Guns are property. -- Some States are prohibiting ownership of assault weapons. In effect, you are arguing that they have that power.

It says that "privileges and immunities" are protected from state action. Proponents of the 14th Amendment intended this to impose the Bill of Rights (including an individual right to keep and bear arms) onto the states. The "due process of law" provision does not prohibit the states from regulatory actions, --

It prohibits them from infringements.

-- either sensible or stupid, but simply requires that when they do so, they give you the benefit of hearings, at least a pretense of impartiality, notice, etc.

There you go. You admit such laws are stupid [infringements] yet you would allow them. Go figure that for fundamental ignorance.

The "equal protection" provision was to guarantee that blacks and Republicans in the South didn't get injured by unequal application of the laws. This isn't a ban on the states regulating actions--only requiring that if the laws made distinctions, they could not be arbitrary.

The 14th's overall thrust was and is to stop States from making arbitrary 'laws' banning arms, property, life and liberty. Your knowledge of the 14ths history is pathetic.