Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Mao said that all power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Why is it so hard for murderers to get people to renounce Christianity at the barrel of a gun? Ideas are where the power is.Mao said that all power comes from the barrel of a gun.
So the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. States have the right to pass laws about things not covered in the Constitution. So where do the states get the right to pass laws about things covered in the Constitution, such as Gun Control bills. If the Second Amendment is part of the supreme law of the land, where do the States get the power to pass more restrictive laws on guns?
Which states are in violation of the 2A? None as far as I know, as none have a total ban on handguns.
No, that's simply not the way of it. The Second Amendment wasn't intended to bind the States, and while the 14th Amendment has been construed so as to provide federal protection of some fundamental RKBA, the States still have gun control powers.Any State that puts any restrictions on any arms is in violation of the Second Amendment.
If the Second Amendment is part of the supreme law of the land, where do the States get the power to pass more restrictive laws on guns?
The Second Amendment is not the supreme law of the land until SCOTUS says so
cause then our firearm hating government would impose a crazy high tax on the guns we can currently ownHow about we cut off the money to the federal gov't, except a minimal amount, and keep it in each state where it belongs. This way the feds don't have a carrot to offer to do things their way and can't afford a big enough stick to force the issue(s). Kind of like it was meant to be when the Constitution was ratified.
Why is it so hard for murderers to get people to renounce Christianity at the barrel of a gun? Ideas are where the power is.
The {edited: fill-in-the-blank} is not the supreme law of the land until SCOTUS says so:
geekWithA.45 said:As a Citizen, you are expected to understand this document, note discrepancies with current practice, and act accordingly.
azmjs said:It is impossible to both support the constitution and oppose the supreme court's authority.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
There is always the danger that one of the branches of government could abuse its check and balance powers in order to subvert our system of government.