In reply to Max_Archer:
It didn't used to be that way Archer, and I somewhat question anywhere in the constitution that claims federal always trumps state rights.....our nation used to be referred to as "The United States ARE" instead of "The United States IS" When that changed, I somewhat doubt any laws were changed to make this evident.
Bonus points if you can guess when this shift occurred.
Max_Archer wrote: Wait a second, that's not even constitutional. Federal law trumps state every time, you can't legalize something the federal government has made illegal. (Which is why DEA can still raid pot stuff to their hearts' content in CA and nobody tries to stop them.)
Oh, hi. I'm in a STATE where recreational marijuana use is legal. Something that's federally illegal. Huh, how about that?
Javelin wrote:Max_Archer wrote: Wait a second, that's not even constitutional. Federal law trumps state every time, you can't legalize something the federal government has made illegal. (Which is why DEA can still raid pot stuff to their hearts' content in CA and nobody tries to stop them.)Oh, hi. I'm in a STATE where recreational marijuana use is legal. Something that's federally illegal. Huh, how about that?
All well and good right until you fire up in front of a fed that elects not to look the other way.
Max_Archer wrote: Wait a second, that's not even constitutional. Federal law trumps state every time....
I was wondering about this also. Although I don't know if that is actually in the Constitution.
The 14th amendment says federal trumps the state going the other way (you cannot remove a federal right or privilege), but it does not say anything about giving more rights.
In reply to aircooled:
And the 14th was in reference to slavery wasn't it? Odd but you're close with that point to my bonus points on history.
If anyone is still considering contacting their congress critters concerning gun control legislation, I would like to offer this link to make those people easier to find.
Choose a category (Senators, Reps, etc) then choose your state. It provides you with their office address and phone numbers.
yamaha wrote: ....And the 14th was in reference to slavery wasn't it?...
Somebody previously had mentioned that the part of 14th about not restricting rights was due to states attempts to keep ex-slaves from owning weapons. I don't know about that but it sounds like something that could have happened.
N Sperlo wrote: As for taking a swing at me, I don't care if you are closed fisted, or swinging a finger, thats a threat, and you're hitting the ground and getting cuffed.
Easy there Paul Blart, ownership of fists is not taking a swing at people. Just like the ownership of arms isn't inherently threatening.
That's a deep issue: those looking to disarm consider mere possession of a weapon to be a threat. Logic would dictate that it's not.
Break break.
You guys are really thinking of the 9th and 10th.
The 9th, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Basically says that just because the Constitution doesn't list it as a right doesn't mean you don't have it.
The 10th, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." is pretty self-explanatory.
These Amendments established a strong legacy of state's rights, a legacy which is pretty much but a memory these days (thanks, Lincoln).
yep, I am sure it is a lot more complicated then we are trying to make it. I suspect there are some really well studied people somewhere who have this stuff pretty much figured out (rights wise).
Osterkraut wrote: ....These Amendments established a strong legacy of state's rights, a legacy which is pretty much but a memory these days (thanks, Lincoln).
Of course, without his convolutions, we would have been an embarrassment of a "free" country for a long time after his "reign"
OK, here is a fun wrench to throw, from an interesting source:
Harris-Perry: Ending drug war may be ‘best gun control measure we can enact’
You all got the era right......after the civil war(which wasn't about slavery, but States rights) the states pretty much fell in and let the federal government do whatever it pleased, despite not possessing the authority to do so
yamaha wrote: ...civil war(which wasn't about slavery, but States rights)...
One of those rights of course would be the right to have slaves and the industry that that brings (money).
To say the cause of the US civil war was not heavily influenced by the issue of slavery seems a bit naive. It's not like they said "No slavery" "Yes slavery" and started shooting, but slavery was very intertwined in there.
aircooled wrote: To say the cause of the US civil war was not heavily influenced by the issue of slavery seems a bit naive.
It wasn't so much about owning people as it was what a labor shortage would do to the entire economy of the south. So, it was about slavery, but not the moral high ground of freedom. That was just politics. It was always about the money.
yamaha wrote: I somewhat question anywhere in the constitution that claims federal always trumps state rights.....
Article VI, Clause II:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Now, when it comes to weed being legal in certain states, all that means is that the cops that arrest you will be DEA, not state or local jurisdictions.
Believe me, I'm not trying to justify gun control in any form. But it is clear that federal law trumps state law.
Of course that is referring to the Constitution. What they are doing is passing laws to nullify federal laws (not constitutional rights).
It certainly brings up some wierd issues, but would likely be like the pot issue. Fine in the state, but if ATF come to town things might get a bit tense.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: It wasn't so much about owning people as it was what a labor shortage would do to the entire economy of the south. So, it was about slavery, but not the moral high ground of freedom. That was just politics. It was always about the money.
Which of course makes it that much more disgusting. The basic rights and dignity of a human being did not concern them, but when someone wants to take away their almost free labor... oh boy, it war!!!
In reply to aircooled:
It was a different time...oddly enough, back then the democrats favored slavery.
Will, that just states that the states cannot pass laws that nullify the rights in the constitution....the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not federal laws that are not in the constitution or its amendments. End of story.
idk if states offering more freedoms than federal law has ever occurred before. And it is definitely not forbidden AFAIK by the constitution.
Our President said: "It's certainly good for business,"
Responding to question about the recent spike in gun sales.
Then you may need to edit your post.
Found another:
Prez. Obama said: "I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry about,"
This was actually found on fox news in an article talking about attempting to impeach the prez if any executive action was taken to control gun ownership.
yeah i've noticed that just about every time Obama is telling you "Oh, they're just overreacting, we're not doing what they say we are" they are probably doing exactly what they say he is, or worse.
This president for some reason never gets called out on things, and instead gets a free pass to piss on our shoes while telling us it's raining.
"We have the most open and transparent administration in the history of the country" while all the time doing the opposite.
"I'm not going to try to take your guns away" while working on legislation in secret to do just that.
"The debt limit negotiation has never been tied to a spending discussion, and debt has nothing to do with spending"
seriously, how do you think we got all that debt in the first place? stuffing all our money inside the mattress?
and it goes on and on.
Strizzo wrote: seriously, how do you think we got all that debt in the first place? stuffing all our money inside the mattress?
How does that contribute to the conversation? If you think it does, I'll happily rebut.
....ahhh.. the road to a closed thread....
...I figured is thread would make it to the release of the recommendations....
...maybe not...
N Sperlo wrote:Strizzo wrote: seriously, how do you think we got all that debt in the first place? stuffing all our money inside the mattress?How does that contribute to the conversation? If you think it does, I'll happily rebut.
it was merely another example of "the emperor has no clothes" that goes beyond the current conversation of gun control, not meant to start another discussion.
It's stayed a rant regarding guns for how many threads? Of course politics are going to play a part. Please don't come in shouting your conspiracy theory (which is purely what it is) about Obama. I don't know if you misread my post, but as an independent supporter of our president, I'm trying to show how he can help end this weapon ban to the benefit of gun owners.
Now, please back to our regularly scheduled debate without insulting anyone including the president, speaker off the house, or tea party.
aircooled wrote: ....ahhh.. the road to a closed thread.... ...I figured is thread would make it to the release of the recommendations.... ...maybe not...
I think if you believe that what biden and the rest of his crew heard when they met with their hand picked groups of people will have any effect on the legislation that gets dropped in the laps of congress the day or two after, you're pretty naive.
You'll need to log in to post.
