|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The 2nd Amendment vs the Incorporation Doctrine
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It is only the fallacious belief in the “Incorporation Doctrine,” which interprets the Fourteenth Amendment as giving the Federal Government supreme power over all the States, that many believe the 2nd Amendment trumps a States right to regulate firearms.
It is the responsibility of the people of the States to create rules, regulations and laws that suit their needs. If a State wants to ban all handguns and its people agree, so be it. If a State wants its citizens armed with automatic weapons and its people concur, so be it. However, if the Federal Government attempts to regulate who can own firearms and what types, then the 2nd Amendment comes into play. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/10/2015)
|
This view is just F.O.S.
The Constitution was written to be amended by the people, and it was so amended by the addition of the 14th Amendment, which extended all protections and proscriptions contained in the Bill of Rights to bind the several states.
And that is just a FACT.
Now, if one wishes to discuss "selective incorporation", an argument to debunk that dubious practice can well be made. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
