After all, the idea of states rights is thought of as a conservative idea, and the process of incorporation uses the 14th Amendment to limit what the states can do.
This is an example of the ignorance that the left uses to smear conservatives. Stated plainly - they want states rights, but they support removing states rights.
We need to be more focused on directing the discussion to the true issue - this isn't about state rights, this is about personal rights for which no government, federal, state, or local, has the authority to interfere with. Period. This is specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, no questions asked unless you want to contort and torture the plain reading.
I could care less what "lock and load" means to anyone. The subtle dig in the article is - conservative ideals and respect for the Constitution are not compatible.
We really need to get better at countering this kind of BS.
We really need to get better at countering this kind of BS.
That's not true. I doubt that you're familiar with the editorial attitude of the NY Sun. They're quite conservative. They used to be a broadsheet on weekdays, IIRC. Now it's a weekly online, but it's still conservative. Check their homepage.
The 2nd:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The 14th:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...”
Can’t get much clearer than that once the “Militia” history is understood. In fact one can argue the 2nd amendment is sufficient - it’s hard to argue with “shall not be infringed”. Seems to me here in CA that telling me I can’t carry openly or concealed is infringing on my right to “bear arms”.