Cain on gun controll/Ron Paul

[goodnightChesty1775]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2785548/posts

found this little jem. not quite the answer i feel comfortable reading....but sooo much better than c*ntary clinton.

anyone know any links for ron pauls views? im gona look right now too. the more the better.


now for the good stuff,

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-12-09/ron-paul-on-gun-control/

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Gun_Control.htm

[RS762]

Paul can't be topped when it comes to the second amendment.
Something that doubletalk-loving Shill Cain will not directly address.

[WhiskeyJack]

Guns good, Bans bad

[Outonowhere]

Guns good, Bans bad

 [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co [url=http://yoursmiles.org/p-m

[tominphx]

I think Cain's position is the correct one if you want to be an originalist on the constitution. The power to regulate or even completely ban guns is not delegated to the federal government, so therefore it IS reserved for the states or the people. Just like the 1st amendment before the 14th and "incorporation" of some the bill of rights. The constitution was never meant to restrict the states, only the federal government. Some rights have also been held to not be incorporated, such as a right to an indictment by a grand jury, that is left up to the states. Although since the 14th amendment was never part of the original constitution, if you believe in the original intent of the founders, the entire process of incorporation should be repugnant to you.

Of course at the time, the idea of any level of government interfering with a free man's right to keep and bear arms was considered ludicrous.

[Outonowhere]

Of course at the time, the idea of any level of government interfering with a free man's right to keep and bear arms was considered ludicrous.

Maybe so, but I am still of the opinion that it was all encompassing, not leaving it to the states.  If North Carolina had guns and South Carolina banned them completely, what would keep NC, besides federal intervention of course, from "annexing" SC?

2A - 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.

10A - The powers not delegated to the United (individual) States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Maybe I'm just playing with the bold button but that seems pretty clear to me.

[thekiltedpatriot]

anyone know any links for ron pauls views? im gona look right now too. the more the better.

No links, but I met the man once when I lived in Texas.  I'll never forget the words he said to me on the subject:

"The Second Amendment is the teeth of the Constitution."

[tominphx]

Of course at the time, the idea of any level of government interfering with a free man's right to keep and bear arms was considered ludicrous.

Maybe so, but I am still of the opinion that it was all encompassing, not leaving it to the states.  If North Carolina had guns and South Carolina banned them completely, what would keep NC, besides federal intervention of course, from "annexing" SC?

2A - 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.

10A - The powers not delegated to the United (individual) States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Maybe I'm just playing with the bold button but that seems pretty clear to me.

Preventing one state from invading another is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, promoting general welfare, and protection from invasion and such.

The "individual" part doesn't appear in the constitution, and there is a clear distinction between the federal government and the states in the 10th amendment.
Just like some states could do other abhorrent things, like not having laws preventing people from keeping human beings as property, I do believe that individual states have the power to pass their own laws, provided they do not violate the state's own constitution. And most states DO have a enumerated RKBA in their state constitutions.

[Outonowhere]

Oh sure states do, they have a "Right to keep and bear arms the way we say, when we say and how we say".  That's not freedom, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some pencil dick politician tell me I can't keep or bear my arms because he doesn't like me having them.  So they can take that nice anti-gun legislation, roll it up tight and sit on it, cause it doesn't mean a damned thing to me.

The "individual" part doesn't appear in the constitution, and there is a clear distinction between the federal government and the states in the 10th amendment.

No fucking shit Sherlock, maybe that is why it was in parenthesis AND italicized.  People today talk about the United States being one massive organ when it is actually a collection of such smaller organs.  The whole (individual) part was to remind you that they may be "United" but they are still individual states.  And let me remind you the part you forgot from the 10th Amendment...

10A - The powers not delegated to the United (individual) States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that is given BY THEIR CREATOR to THE PEOPLE for self defense and even defense of State/Nation.

2A - 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.

A well regulated Militia = A well trained group of individuals
being necessary to the security of a free State = Without it you have Tyranny, no matter from without or from within
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms = The right, not privilege of individual people to own carry, and use firearms
shall not be infringed. = Everything in this amendment is non negotiable.  I don't think this last part should be all that hard to figure out.

As to the state constitutions leaving it open where the AG or whoever in the state can regulate peoples 2A, its illegal due to the existence of the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights which supersedes it as the supreme law of the land for THESE United States.

[tominphx]

I actually realized you are correct in regards to the 2nd amendment, since there are 3 distinct groups recognized in the constitution, the feds, the states, and the people. It clearly says "the right of the people ..." and  "... shall not be infringed" meaning states, or local government do not have the power to restrict that right in any way.

However, I firmly believe in "states rights" in the respect that they may pass laws that the federal government would not be allowed to, such as a law respecting an establishment of religion, the constitution very clearly says that power is prohibited to congress, as an example.



Also, you referred to firearms in the 2nd amendment, it says "arms", which means any weapon. The founders fought the revolutionary war with privately owned warships, artillery, and other such weapons which where the most powerful of the time, so I think they fully intended those that could afford things such as tanks, AFVs, naval warships and submarines, and tactical and strategic aircraft, have a right to possess them. "Arms" also encompasses weapons we can not conceive of yet, like something out of science fiction.

[Reaver]

Well said outofknowwhere

But please don't swear at other members. If you must swear, do as I do an swear into the air. The hostility between us must cease. We are on the same side gents.

[sledge]

In the 1700's the term "well regulated" was defined as "working properly as designed".   It had nothing to do with regulations as some anti gun idiots try to portray.