i don't see anything is the 2nd that says depending on what state you live in...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.
Did applying the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments to the States constitute judicial tyranny as well?
Whenever injustice masquerades as justice, it pretends to be what it isn’t, and anytime someone pretends something to be what it is not, it is so the injustice can continue. Injustice masquerading as justice is a con game the elite don’t want to stop.
http://incapp.org/blog/?p=2634
Apparently it does.
It was judicial tyranny applied by the conservative judges on the supreme court.
Then it was judicial tyranny when the SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment applied to the states. If it didn't, New York would ban most churches and deny conservative internet speech. That would be SWELL. < /s>
States should be allowed to restrict gun ownership however they want to restrict it.
Then southern states should be able to reimpose slavery, too.
i don't see anything is the 2nd that says depending on what state you live in...The second amendment is not just a restriction on the federal government, however.
The first amendment says, for example, that ‘Congress shall make no law...’, but that language is not evident in the second amendment.
In the second amendment, it simply says ‘shall not be infringed.’
This does not merely handcuff the federal government from infringement of this basic human right, it restricts all governments from infringing on this basic human right.
Only one-issue social conservatives would see a pro-gun ruling to be a bad thing.
So I take it you are against gun ownership, and desire your state to ban all guns from its citizens. Am I correct in my assumption? If so, hope you enjoy your slavery.
The lying worthless self serving bastards.
ALL of the bill of rights pertains to the federal government and nothing else. If it were to apply to the states, who BTW formed this federal tyrannical government, then there would be NO NEED for the tenth amendment.
Way past time for a general house cleaning by whatever means possible.
“The second amendment does not apply to the states.”
The Bill of Rights is not a “Bill of restrictions of the federal government”; it is a list of rights held by the people and not just when dealing with the federal government.
You need to learn civics, and common sense.
Uh, no. Any elementary reading of this amendment, the 1st and many others are protections bestowed on the people. It’s a freedom thing. States don’t have rights to further restrict protected rights of the individual.
States do not have rights. Only citizens have rights. States have any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution was signed by the states agreeing to its contents.
The Founding Fathers clearly understood that gun ownership was a *very* effective means to prevent abusive government.They also understood that freedom of the press,speech and religion were central to a free people.OTOH,I suspect their attitude to a state (or municipality) restricting how a vendor can sell a beverage (e.g.,the size of the cup in which Pepsi is sold) would be that it can be regulated locally,not being *central* to a free people.
You are correct.
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.
Good place to learn about the Constitution:
http://online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses
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".
Your post is full of FAIL in so many ways I cannot begin to count them.
A quick google brought up this link which has some excellent information on each state and their state constitutional legal quotes on their state sponsored Christian religion. It also has a good discussion on the incorporation clause and its affect on the states sponsored religion.
Great details
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69
Including.
“Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868. New Hampshire and North Carolina removed the nullified religious references from their state constitutions in 1875 and 1877 respectively.”