Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[saden1]

It's all about how you choose to interpret the constitution.

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.

Segments of the above quote are not disjoint otherwise they would be on separate line. The founders are people who mastered the English language after all. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" portion would be nonsensical without the first part of the sentence.

The constitution doesn't say following which is how you interpret the constitution:

1. The Congress shall permit the formation of a militia.
3. The Congress shall be responsible for regulating militias.
2. The Congress shall not infringe on the peoples right to bear arms.


As for gay marriage and abortion, that's easy one. Clearly the 1'st and the 14th amendments are interpreted by you differently. When you think of it abortion and gay marriage are after all morally reprehensible because of religious dogma.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's all about interpretation though that dip shit Scallia will have you believe his interpretation is better than everyone else's.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

When you think of it abortion and gay marriage are after all morally reprehensible because of religious dogma.

I am assuming you are referring to me when you say "when you think of it". I never mentioned what my personal views are on either of these issues, you are making an assumption based on my conservative political stances.

I don't care to share my personal view on either of these issues, but my personal views don't matter. I don't believe the gov't should be involved in pushing a particular set of values or morals on anyone. If there are values/moral issues they should be determined at the state level and voted on by the people.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I am assuming you are referring to me when you say "when you think of it". I never mentioned what my personal views are on either of these issues, you are making an assumption based on my conservative political stances.

I don't care to share my personal view on either of these issues, but my personal views don't matter. I don't believe the gov't should be involved in pushing a particular set of values or morals on anyone. If there are values/moral issues they should be determined at the state level and voted on by the people.

"When you think of it" doesn't imply I am alluding to you personally. I am merely appealing to rational minds. The point is many Bible thumping conservatives feel that states should be allowed to ban abortion and gay marriage because the Bile says it's a sin/sinful. Let's not sugar coat the subject, everyone knows what's up.

As for values/morals being determined at the state level being acceptable then how far can states go? What are the limits? Can states mandate via vote that no one under 21 may have sex and you break the law you get 1 year in the pen? What about the prospect of conflicting state laws (you're married in CA but you have no rights in GA...if you want to commit the crime of abortion hit the interstate, don't do it in our neck of the woods)? Also, if you can say values/morals can be determined at the state level then couldn't they be determined at the county level? City level? What's the point of having a federal system?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

"When you think of it" doesn't imply I am alluding to you personally. I am merely appealing to rational minds. The point is many Bible thumping conservatives feel that states should be allowed to ban abortion and gay marriage because the Bile says it's a sin/sinful. Let's not sugar coat the subject, everyone knows what's up.

I agree with your point, but it does cut both ways. Many hippie, pot-smoking liberals want legalized drugs and drive-thru abortion clinics. I'm obviously being absurd, but my main point is that the morals of CA aren't the same as KS and IMO the federal government shouldn't be dictating liberal or conservative morality to the entire country.

As for values/morals being determined at the state level being acceptable then how far can states go? What are the limits? Can states mandate via vote that no one under 21 may have sex and you break the law you get 1 year in the pen? What about the prospect of conflicting state laws (you're married in CA but you have no rights in GA...if you want to commit the crime of abortion hit the interstate, don't do it in our neck of the woods)? Also, if you can say values/morals can be determined at the state level then couldn't they be determined at the county level? City level? What's the point of having a federal system?

There are obviously limits on what laws a state could pass, but I would trust the people of a particular state to decide what's best for them rather than 535 congress-people or 9 judges in DC. There are plenty of lawyers and advocacy groups on both sides to keep each other in check and the laws pretty reasonable. Yes, there would be conflicts between states' laws and that's where the Supreme Court would make determinations based on their constitutionality. You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.

I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.

I agree 100% with your first point, any government entity (fed, state, local) should have very limited control in regulating morals/values issues.

My point about the states legislatures being more effective than US congressmen is that they are more in direct touch with their consitituents on a day-to-day basis. At the state level it is generally easier to reach agreement on issues because the scope is much smaller and although communities within a state are often very diverse, it is on a much smaller scale than at the federal level.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.

As a libertarian, I don't like government at any level telling me how I should live my life.

The theory is that state and local legislators know better than a politician in Washington how to represent their constituents. Take the federal speed limits for instance. Awhile back, those laws were rescinded in favor of local and state jurisdiction. How would a Washington hack in the House of Representatives know what the best speed limit is for a rural highway in Junction City, Wyoming if that congressman represents the people of Detroit?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

As a libertarian, I don't like government at any level telling me how I should live my life.

The theory is that state and local legislators know better than a politician in Washington how to represent their constituents. Take the federal speed limits for instance. Awhile back, those laws were rescinded in favor of local and state jurisdiction. How would a Washington hack in the House of Representatives know what the best speed limit is for a rural highway in Junction City, Wyoming if that congressman represents the people of Detroit?

Cogress passed speed restrictions back sometime ago to help with the gas shortage we as a nation faced. I would not be surprised if they did not do it again. The libertarian party thinks that the federal, state and city gov. should be very limited on passing any laws concerning morals. But, they say if a person chooses to shoot up everyday it their problem and goverment will not be there to bail them out.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I agree with your point, but it does cut both ways. Many hippie, pot-smoking liberals want legalized drugs and drive-thru abortion clinics. I'm obviously being absurd, but my main point is that the morals of CA aren't the same as KS and IMO the federal government shouldn't be dictating liberal or conservative morality to the entire country.

Of course, there has to be limits and I don't know why anyone thinks abortion and gay marriage are somehow inside those limits. How far is too far and are bans on abortion and gay marriage too far?

One of the roles of the government is to protect the individual from the government itself (both federal and state). This includes protection from the mob and state sanctioned discriminatory laws based on the values of the mob.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There are obviously limits on what laws a state could pass, but I would trust the people of a particular state to decide what's best for them rather than 535 congress-people or 9 judges in DC. There are plenty of lawyers and advocacy groups on both sides to keep each other in check and the laws pretty reasonable. Yes, there would be conflicts between states' laws and that's where the Supreme Court would make determinations based on their constitutionality. You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.

That's how currently things work...states enact laws, someone challenges those laws and the US Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of these laws. Now, if you want to take the feds out of the picture and let entities within the state fight it out then you are bound to have Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka and Loving vs Virginia. In the Loving case the Supreme Court of Virginia in it's infinite wisdom said the law against interracial marriage is constitutional.

I know your position, I'm just asking where do you draw the line? What particular problem exists in our current system whereby the Supreme Court is the Ultimate decider in matters concerning constitutionality of things.