Posted on 09/16/2015 8:24:38 AM PDT by HomerBohn
This past week Jeb Bush was a guest on The Late Show with new host Stephen Colbert when Bush said something that some conservative voters might find shocking.
When Colbert asked the Governor if the Constitution implied a national right to gun ownership, Bush seemed to indicate that he believed each state had the right to legislate gun ownership as they see fit.
Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn't that also be applied national…
Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There's a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That's an important value for this country, and it's an important federalist system that works quite well.
After the story broke, the Bush campaign contacted the Daily Caller to explain that Bush is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and that he wasn't trying to argue that states have the right to limit the 2nd Amendment.
Governor Bush is a strong 2nd amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida he used the 10th Amendment to expand gun rights with a "Six Pack of Freedom" bill and received an A+ ratings from the NRA.
While I appreciate what Governor Bush was trying to say in the interview, that the states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government (thus creating our federal system), on this issue, he is wrong. See, that's the whole point of the Bill of Rights. It's an enumeration of our specific rights that the federal government AND the states must respect. If the 2nd Amendment did not exist… then his 10th Amendment argument would make sense.
Colbert wasn't asking if the government could expand gun rights, he was saying that since the right to gun ownership is nationally mandated so too should gun laws be nationally mandated.
While Jeb tries to use a states-right argument here, he should have simply turned Colbert's argument back on itself. Because the Constitution mandates the right to gun ownership, this means that the federal government (and the state governments) have no right legislating against gun ownership. If we can't trust Jeb to counter a simple and easily refuted attack on the 2nd Amendment, how can we trust him with more complex issues?
No right, huh? But illegals have a right to come here and the right to take my tax dollars and the right to give my kids’ diseases and the right to take my job. It’s all an act of loooove.
Tagline...
Heb! is as repulsive to me as Barky & Hitlery. I will never, under any circumstances, vote for that pandering loser.
...You don’t think those briefs helped win Heller?...
50 amicus briefs were filed in the Heller case.
Among the groups filing:
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department
Disabled Veterans for Self Defense
Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,
(Who by the way financed the case and paid the expenses for Mr. Heller pursue it)
Its a little much to say Cruz was the lawyer who won Heller. He did contribute tthough. Do you know what brief he worked on? There’s a list on the internet.
Probably the most important brief was Mr. Heller’s attorney’s appellate brief.
Wikipedia, who is no friend of conservatives, thinks he did.
Dunno ‘bout that. You been payin’ attention to New York state and Connecticut and the home of Crazy, the People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornia? They have been passing some some truly insane gun laws.
But you’ve gotta realize something. Maybe there will be some states where the citizens either don’t know or don’t care. But there will also be many more states where the citizens care, have the right legislators or vote through the Initiative/Proposition process to ensure their freedoms including gun ownership. You at least have the option of moving to a more preferred state.
It is important to realize that although not perfect, constitutionally-protected local/state governance is light-years better than unconstitutional interference by the mostly unconstitutional $4 trillion mindless two-headed federal government beast who WILL, AS THEY HAVE ALREADY, TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS if given half the chance and you will have NO OPTIONS.
That ought to help him in the GOP primaries...
They were very lucky. Their parents were Romanian Jews and immigrated to USA settling in Brooklyn I think. This was before the rise of Hitler. The brothers were born after their parents settled here. You sure can't tell it in their speech can you?.
Problem is, we have plenty of instance of state legislatures legislating against the will of their people.
Yes, but the people have the ability to get them out of office. And in local/state governance, the people are much closer to the problem and are better able to deal with the problem through the vote or the Initiative/Proposition process, or if need be, the recall process.
As I said, local/state governance isn’t perfect but it is light years ahead of the darkness of lights-out federal tyranny.
And this ass wants to be president!
But NOT to infringe upon the enumerated rights in the BOR.
Maybe.
Personally, I hate ‘em all.
Tell that to New Jersey.
Of course. There will be some states where the citizens either don’t know or don’t care. But there will also be many more states where the citizens care, have the right legislators or vote through the Initiative/Proposition process to ensure their freedoms including gun ownership. You at least have the option of moving to a more preferred state.
In local/state governance, the people are much closer to the problem and are better able to deal with the problem through the vote or the Initiative/Proposition process, or if need be, the recall process.
As I said, local/state governance isn’t perfect but it is light years ahead of the darkness of lights-out federal tyranny.
Well, you need local and state governance. And in matters of national defense, you need a national government.
But the benefits of all of the above, starting with the feds, have the ever-present potential to become malevolent, which the feds have become. It’s up to us to keep an eye on the chain holding the fox that’s guarding the hen house. In the case of the feds, We the People must reinstate the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land against the feds.
and she still breast feeds Billy and burps him and he enjoys every minute of it. The other Bush men are getting jealous. It's actually a tet a tet.
The states do have the right to limit the 2nd amendment, though. The constitution only says that CONGRESS shall make no law. It never mentions the states in that amendment.
No?
You obviously don’t live in California.
And just as a matter of interest; YOU ARE WRONG, The states cannot “legally” override the the BILL OF RIGHTS.
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.