Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

State rights go out the window when it comes to guns but when it comes to abortion and gay marriage it's god's gift to mankind.

Scalia and crew strike again.

Well, the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. So technically, the idea of "states rights" were thrown out the window around April of 1861.

Personally, I prefer the idea that the states cannot abridge our freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, our freedom to own firearms, and so on. Call me crazy, but the Bill of Rights, and forcing government at the local, state, and federal levels to abide by them seems like a pretty good idea.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Well, the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. So technically, the idea of "states rights" were thrown out the window around April of 1861.

Personally, I prefer the idea that the states cannot abridge our freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, our freedom to own firearms, and so on. Call me crazy, but the Bill of Rights, and forcing government at the local, state, and federal levels to abide by them seems like a pretty good idea.

It's not so simple. In interpreting the scope of the various rights conferred by the Bill of Rights (not in determining whether they even apply), the more conservative justices tend to defer to the states' "reasonable" restrictions on individual liberties. For example, conservative justices tend to grant the states broad rights to impose restrictions on free speech (e.g., porn). They just subscribe to a different philosophy when passing judgment on 2nd Amendment issues.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

It's not so simple. In interpreting the scope of the various rights conferred by the Bill of Rights (not in determining whether they even apply), the more conservative justices tend to defer to the states' "reasonable" restrictions on individual liberties. For example, conservative justices tend to grant the states broad rights to impose restrictions on free speech (e.g., porn). They just subscribe to a different philosophy when passing judgment on 2nd Amendment issues.

I agree. The "conservative" justices like states rights as long as they fit their agenda. They don't like states rights if the people of Oregon decide they want to allow doctor assisted suicide or medical marijuana.

So in reality, the "states rights" argument -- as I said earlier -- no longer holds any water. Both the liberal and conservative wings of the court will stay true to it only if stays within the confines of their personal political philosophy.