Actually the Heller and McDonald cases have shown that it does apply to the states.
Let's take away the guns, and just talk limits. 1. It is my position that that the bill of rights grants nothing, but is only a recognition of natural/god given rights. 2. The supremacy clause makes federal law the highest law in the land, provided the legislation is withiin constitutional limits. If I were to argue from your perspective, than the state can limit your speech, religious freedoms, and everything else. Let's say you're correct thoug. Every state constitution I've ever read has a 2nd amendment like clause in it as well. We ignore these limits imposed on government at all levels ony at great peril. Which is why we find ourselves in such a state today. On Nov 17, 2012 2:30 PM, "Gruss Gott" <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I've already told you that I'm not arguing from that point, there has > been > > tons of bad law, bad precedence. To find the root of this argument we > have > > to look at what the founders intended, not politicians that perverted it > > 100 and more years later. > > > > Also you once again completely ignored the supremacy clause. > > > > Not to mention you can go back and find the right to be armed ensconced > in > > English Common Law, which of course the Brits have ignored and done away > > with mainly (only 1 clause of the magna carta remains in effect). > > > > Cool, then we agree that the 2nd amendment has nothing whatsoever to > say about local gun rights (something, btw, the Supreme Court has yet > to rule on!!) > > I just don't know much about the SC and I'll have to read up, but > given your level of erudition here for now I'll defer to you on the > topic. > > Which is really my position on guns - I'm totally cool with them. The > only thing I would add is something more akin to Germany or > Switzerland in that gun owners need formal training and licensing. > > --------------- > Now, back to the Supreme Court ... since that's more fun to me :) > > You see their dilemma right? A "conservative court" arguing for > federal powers to squash state's rights? And you know if they ruled > for global federal power on this topic it would mean a justification > for expansion of the federal government ... > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:358522 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
