Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies to States. (and an anti-Heller vanity by me)
Prospect ^ | unknown | impimp

Posted on 09/06/2015 7:50:57 AM PDT by impimp

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: impimp; Lazamataz

See Laz’s 55 on this thread. He answered it perfectly.


61 posted on 09/06/2015 8:49:11 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: impimp

The second amendment isn’t one of those overreaches.


62 posted on 09/06/2015 8:49:39 AM PDT by MortMan (The rule of law is now the law of rulings - Judicial, IRS, EPA...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears; impimp
impimp is just studiously ignoring one particular clause in the Tenth Amendment.

Until he stops ignoring that clause, he should recategorize himself from a tenther, to a partial-tenther. :)

63 posted on 09/06/2015 8:50:02 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Ok. We won't call them 'Anchor Babies'. From now on, we shall call them 'Fetal Grappling Hooks'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Not trying to sound like a jerk, but the federalist papers clearly say that the militia is comprised of the whole of the people.


64 posted on 09/06/2015 8:50:57 AM PDT by wastedyears (Iron Maiden's new album is majestic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Yeah, like what Doomberg tried to do over here.............


65 posted on 09/06/2015 8:51:43 AM PDT by wastedyears (Iron Maiden's new album is majestic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
I would never expect to see such ignorance on parade here.

I was beginning to think I was the only one who noticed.

66 posted on 09/06/2015 8:52:38 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: impimp

At the time the constitution was signed, I believe all the individual states had a state sponsored Christian religion, and they were mostly different. One of the purposes of the 1st amendment was to constrain the federal government and prohibit it from determining a national Christian religion which could start internal religious wars.


67 posted on 09/06/2015 8:57:14 AM PDT by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - Classical Christian Approach to Homeschool ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Exactly - I am opposed to the first amendment applying to the states as well.


68 posted on 09/06/2015 8:59:14 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
aside from the troll factor....

He is correct in that selective incorparaion is foolish as the 14th should have Incorporated all or none of the the bill of rights via the privliages and immunities clause.

69 posted on 09/06/2015 8:59:33 AM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

impimp always shows what a typical ignorant liberal he is.


70 posted on 09/06/2015 8:59:45 AM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
the Constitution determines what the states can't do.
Those are in:

Commerce Clause\Necessary and proper\Taxing Spending- Funding clauses.

for instance: Article 1 Section 8 clause 3

Congress has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among several states, as well as with Indian Tribes

states can't regulate commerce. (course, try and take fruit to and from california\arizona)

Course, Congress has abdicated so much and the Judiciary has made so many laws, being a strict constitionalist has no meaning.

71 posted on 09/06/2015 9:02:04 AM PDT by stylin19a (obama = Fredo Smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

He sure doesn’t seem to be a friend of the Second Amendment. This, and other comments about guns I’ve seen in his feed.


72 posted on 09/06/2015 9:02:59 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Ok. We won't call them 'Anchor Babies'. From now on, we shall call them 'Fetal Grappling Hooks'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Why are you talking about the government deciding to police the world to me?


73 posted on 09/06/2015 9:03:20 AM PDT by wastedyears (Iron Maiden's new album is majestic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Good place to learn about the Constitution:
http://online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses


74 posted on 09/06/2015 9:04:40 AM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Lord, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp
The second amendment does not apply to the states. It was judicial tyranny applied by the conservative judges on the supreme court. States should be allowed to restrict gun ownership however they want to restrict it. Why would I be highlighting this to Freepers and ruin my reputation as a conservative? Because states rights are being eroded by the Supreme Court and this gun ruling helps to PAVE THE WAY FOR GAY MARRIAGE.

It actually applies to the People.

I understand your argument but it far more than that which causes the rise of federally mandated homosexual marriage.

The fact that churches and married couples received tax breaks from the Feds opened the door for almost all of the torts it commits against the States and the People - when the federal Government doles out its "largess' it is of the opinion that it owns the sum of the "program" that it "donates" to. If churches weren't tax exempt, the government would have no say in what is said from the pulpit regarding politics or anything else. Same goes for its "support" of marriage - w/o the additional "benefits and tax breaks" there wouldn't have been a huge gaping crack to leverage for "fairness" and be turned into "civil rights".

75 posted on 09/06/2015 9:05:25 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp; CodeToad
Exactly - I am opposed to the first amendment applying to the states as well.

You WILL NOT ANSWER where we show that you are only reading and applying part of the Tenth Amendment.

Therefore, you are willfully ignoring it.

Please refer to yourself as a partial-tenther from now on.

Of course, 'liberal' will work as well.

76 posted on 09/06/2015 9:05:27 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Ok. We won't call them 'Anchor Babies'. From now on, we shall call them 'Fetal Grappling Hooks'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Liberal. Partial Constitutionalist is a liberal.


77 posted on 09/06/2015 9:06:22 AM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
No, we see that he is not ignorant.

He is just willfully ignoring the clear text of the Tenth Amendment.

Yer right. He's got some liberalism on him.

EWWWWW

78 posted on 09/06/2015 9:07:15 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Ok. We won't call them 'Anchor Babies'. From now on, we shall call them 'Fetal Grappling Hooks'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
Course, Congress has abdicated so much and the Judiciary has made so many laws, being a strict constitionalist has no meaning.

Sad, but true.

As a poster mentioned on another thread his morning, "we live in a post constitutional country"

79 posted on 09/06/2015 9:08:18 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
In 2008, Mark Levin observed that we entered the "Post-constitutional era."

In 2012, Mark Levin observed that we entered the "Post-law era."

I assert that in 2015, we have entered the "Post-language era."

Words no longer have any meaning.

80 posted on 09/06/2015 9:11:41 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Ok. We won't call them 'Anchor Babies'. From now on, we shall call them 'Fetal Grappling Hooks'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson