Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

My favorite founding father was Alex Hamilton because Hamilton (and Washington) agreed that federal power had to be enlarged from the Articles of Confederation but not made too large to omit the ascendency of states in most matters.

 

Well... whether the power to make laws is or is not delegated to Congress is a completely different topic. For now having agreed that the 2nd A is irrelevant is good enough for me.

 

Still shoveling this shi'ite, eh?

 

that's a dishonest take on what I said and you know it. and where the second becomes so important is pretty much the same way other bill of rights rights became far more important was because of incorporation.

 

lets see if you can answer this question honestly

when the federal courts can enforce the bill of rights against state governments the
freedom of the individual citizens increase

yes
no

 

yeah when it comes to the federal government preventing the states from violating important constitutional rights as guaranteed by the BOR and the 14th amendment

 

He knows he lies.
Because he know you will respond to his lies.

 

it is educating others that is my goal, not trying to change his lies

 

No it is NOT! Whether it's wrong or not... I doubt YOU would have any arguments to establish the latter. But it most definitely not dishonest. You did acknowledge that the 2nd A is irrelevant at a federal level. I'll take it! The caveat you expressed about the relevance depending on the 10th A is irrelevant to the argument I made.

 

dishonest because i had a major qualifier you ignored.

 

Yes, but that is a false equivalency since the argument among us is does interpreting the last 13 words of the second amendment as an absolute right for Americans to own and use arms give the federal absolute power over states concerning arms usage???.And interpreting the last 13 like you and SCOTUS wants to absolutely does give the federal more rights than states concerning arms. Matter of fact, using your and SCOTUS' interpretation of the last 13 words, the second amendment should be excluded from the bill of rights since the federal is given immense power determining arms usage in America.

 

Dude, when the federal prevents the states, that is an increase of federal power not a limiting of federal power. Figure it out, just once.

 

first of all its the fourteenth amendment that is in play. government does not have rights it has power. you're mad that the federal government can limit the POWER of the state governments to interfere with the FREEDOM of individuals. the FEDERAL POWER is merely to limit state interference of individuals' choice. Your posts show massive confusion over the bill of rights, the fourteenth amendment and incorporation

why are you so upset that incorporation means states cannot ban guns, etc?

 

more nonsense=all the federal government could do -after incorporation -is to prevent STATES FROM limiting inherent constitutional rights of citizens. MORE FREEDOM FOR CITIZENS, LESS restrictive powers by the states. WIN WIN

 

Who gave the federal the right of incorporation to allow gun usage in America? Certainly not the passers of the second amendment. And does SCOTUS deserve the precedent of incorporating arms usage interpretations when states don't reserve those rights? If there is to be a federal arms right amendment (and there isn't a federal arms right amendment, certainly not the second amendment), what should be done is passing an actual federal arms right amendment and not disingenuously call the second amendment a universal arms right for Americans amendment.

I pointed this out in a previous post to you on this thread. Since arms usage was so accepted and so an accepted way of life for Americans in 1791, why was there the need for the passers of the second amendment to ensure arms rights to Americans? Why wasn't there, also, an amendment to ensure all Americans could eat, sleep **** and procreate, for examples? The simple fact is the last 13 words of the second amendment never was intended to ensure arms rights to all Americans. The last 13 words were intended to limit the power of the federal over state constitution provisions concerning arms usage and legality.

 

What prestidigitation. Don't look at the increase of federal power, here. Concentrate on the inherent right for arms usage by all Americans...And call it a limiting of federal power over states.

 

the people and states who passed the fourteenth amendment after the civil war.

I guess my question to you is WTF is your damage? why so butt hurt over the federal courts being able to stop states from say suppressing free speech or firearms ownership

 

WTF does that mean. who enforces constitutional rights?

 

But, dude, you're mistaken. There's all kinds of wording in the first amendment about not suppressing free speech but no wording in the second amendment about guaranteeing arms usage for all Americans.

 

It's called judicial overreach by SCOTUS.

 

you again fail to see the obvious point. there is nothing that empowered the federal government to have any say over what arms private citizens could own.

 

so what you are bellyaching about is that you don't like states being told they cannot repress constitutional rights by the federal courts. You think that states should have the power to ban guns, suppress free speech, the right of assembly the right of worship etc/

You value state Power over INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

 

So, why is there consensus among you and SCOTUS, for examples, that there is an empowerment the federal government has over arms usage?

 

I think that states (at least, so in the minds of the passers of the second amendment) had the ultimate say over arms usage in America.

 

your argument is faulty, you claim that when federal courts strike down state infringements on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, that empowers the federal government. You are clearly mistaken. all the federal government can do is to eliminate attempts by state governments to reduce the FREEDOM of citizens

why do you have such a hard on for the concept of incorporation. You seem to worship state power and hate individual freedom