[tacticalogic]

If so, then you would agree that the BOR only applies to the federal government, leaving these issues (eg., guns/speech/religion) to the purview of the states?

I might entertain a debate on the issue in the proper context. It seems rather OT on this thread.

[tpaine]

SampleMan asked:

It is most likely in today's environment that you'll either get legal drugs and illegal guns/speech/religion or legal guns/speech/religion and illegal drugs.

What's your best case scenario?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Our rights to guns, speech, religion, intoxicating substances, consensual sex, and helmet-less motorcycle riding cannot be infringed.. - Even by a super-majority. -- That's the Law of the Land, not a 'scenario'.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Tacticalogic:

Best case scenario is that we get legal guns/speech/religion, and the drug question is left up to the States, where it belongs. --- Public health issues seem to have been intended to be the purview of the States."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Naturally your answer gets the majority rule faction all aflutter, as it seems to agree that the BOR only applies to the federal government, leaving the issues of guns, speech, religion & drug prohibitions up to the states..

Would you agree that the 14th amendment must apply when States write legislation that regulates on life, liberty, or property?