Federal? Absolutely there is see 2a. State? See 14th amendment and incorporation. You can't have it both ways.
Local and state laws pre incorporation of the BOR by the 14th amendment. Post incorporation the same proposition that applies to the feds regarding arms (hands off) now also applies to the states.
Depends. They have the interstate commerce clause but how that is used now is not how it was written or intended by the Founders. The powers you're talking about don't come out until West Coast Hotel v Parrish and Wickward v Filburn in the 30's and 40's respectively.
Dude, do you believe the Constitution gives us our rights? Sorry, but the Constitution limits the Federal government not the other way around.
Nice waffle. Now, please answer the question: Does the Constitution give people rights or does it limit government powers?
No, Rights are a fundamental way of life, completely independent of society and would still apply to the lone survivor on a desert island. Self defense is one such issue, survival, procreation, a Government can be corrupted by despotic men as can society and anything humans contruct or devise, the Nazis did that, they remade society to suit their evil purposes and plans. Wise men must know and understand what is just and often enough, society has not reflected true Rights and ways of life and adopted oppresion.
He will not answer, so I will answer. The Constitution cannot grant what is already ours by Right, our legacy. The Constitution limits or is supposed to limit Government power & authority, as in illegal searches and siezures without warrant or probable cause.
rights only exist if the people around you recognize and acknowledge them. the Jews of Germany had the right to live in peace but the surrounding community failed to recognize such a right for Jews
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed, although I think anytime a mass shooting occurs, it's within the rehelm of possibility that the gun manufactures pay certain people to publicly claim we need more gun control in order to boost sales. Agreed; the laws don't work as in tended. We need one national standard. Don't agree completely; there are plenty of Red states where violence does occur; Virginia, Texas, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, etc. Resisting is futile; When the 16th Amendment was passed there was outcry; it was felt that there was no way the government could possibly keep track of everyone but somehow they did; hence you have the system today that we use to collect taxes. The same goes with gun control; it may take time, but eventually given the large of amount of fines and/or prison time that could be levied upon violators, you'll get majority compliance.
Geez, those that violate current gun law are rarely prosecuted... I haven’t noted a significant rise in arrests and prosecution in those states that banned scary looking guns and large capacity magazines despite violations being considered felonies; compliance is slated to be less than 15% and perhaps less than 10%.
Correct. Despite the error of playing with Godwin's Law, he's also making the error of denying someone has rights simply because a very authoritarian government deprived citizens of their rights.
If Ron were to admit the obvious: that the bill of rights restricts the federal government from interfering with rights (that the federal government was never given the proper power to encroach upon anyway) he would have to admit that crap he supports like magazine limits or how many guns you can buy in a given period are unconstitutional
Like a lot of things the Constitution is pretty vague on that point, and necessarily so. A Constitution can't really go into all the details of everything. It would be too long and not everything can be anticipated. It's only meant to lay out the groundwork. And the individual states were meant to decide that. When the text says "shall not be infringed", it really meant under this Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution is not the only power in the country, you also have all those states. However, when the Supreme Court began trying to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, then it ran into inconsistencies, which had to be creatively explained away and resolved.
Yes, but you are attempting to equate the events of a city with those of an entire state, hence why the apples-to-oranges comment was appropriate.
Shouldn't the state count when when you are discussing cities; a death is a death regardless of whether it's a city, town, village or state. At least that's the way i look at it.
If you want to have a discussion about states then that is a different subject. But don't try to compare apples to oranges.
