Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Why I was against open carry
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JM44-40" data-source="post: 1985496" data-attributes="member: 14273"><p>James Madison did not believe the “Bill of Rights” was necessary due to the enumerated powers already set forth within the Constitution. That’s just a matter of fact. He agreed to write the first ten amendments at the insistence of others. He basically believed they were unnecessary.</p><p></p><p>Madison believed that there was already enough protection in the constitution due to the separation of powers, i.e. -- the federal government could not infringe upon the states’ rights because of the restraints already placed upon it &#8211; any powers not set forth specifically for the feds were to remain with the states.</p><p></p><p>This has all become topsy-turvy and screwed around with the fourteenth amendment.</p><p></p><p>And, before it can be concluded that federal law trumps state law, it must be remembered that the federal law in question has to be pursuant to the constitution. That’s important.</p><p></p><p>Constitutional scholars are still debating whether the “fourteenth amendment” applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Liberals want it both ways and will say some amendments do, and some amendments don’t and that’s hogwash. They can’t have it both ways.</p><p></p><p>As stated above, Madison only wrote the amendments due to the insistence of others as a further guarantee against the central government infringing upon the rights of each state.</p><p></p><p>Therefore, I think one could safely take his stand with Madison and conclude that the “right to bear arms” extended beyond and before the second amendment and is a “God Given” inalienable right even before his composition of the first ten amendments.</p><p></p><p>I would personally take my stand with the others who wanted the extra guarantee, but any discussion of the first ten amendments should recognize Madison’s viewpoint. You don’t have to agree with it, but it should at least be recognized and enter into any debate.</p><p></p><p>If the “right to bear arms” is God given, then no government &#8211; federal, state, or local can or should be able to interfere with it.</p><p></p><p>If it is accepted that the fourteenth amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states then you have accepted the Owellian concept that a set of amendments designed as a protection for the states from the federal government is now a set of amendments that can be used by the federal government as a weapon to be applied against the states.</p><p></p><p>Liberals use this argument everyday to try and justify no prayer in school. How does prayer in an Oklahoma school equate to congress establishing a national religion? It doesn’t.</p><p></p><p>A business owner can’t, and should not be able to, put up a sign that says “whites only.” Therefore, if we accept that the “right to keep and bear arms” is God given and an inalienable right, it should only logically follow that business owners should not be allowed to put up gun buster signs.</p><p></p><p>So, when those signs go up, I would respectfully submit that my constitutional rights have been adversely affected. Telling me I should just go do business elsewhere is like telling me to go eat at a different restaurant because establishment "a" won't allow me in because of the color of my skin.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JM44-40, post: 1985496, member: 14273"] James Madison did not believe the “Bill of Rights” was necessary due to the enumerated powers already set forth within the Constitution. That’s just a matter of fact. He agreed to write the first ten amendments at the insistence of others. He basically believed they were unnecessary. Madison believed that there was already enough protection in the constitution due to the separation of powers, i.e. -- the federal government could not infringe upon the states’ rights because of the restraints already placed upon it – any powers not set forth specifically for the feds were to remain with the states. This has all become topsy-turvy and screwed around with the fourteenth amendment. And, before it can be concluded that federal law trumps state law, it must be remembered that the federal law in question has to be pursuant to the constitution. That’s important. Constitutional scholars are still debating whether the “fourteenth amendment” applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Liberals want it both ways and will say some amendments do, and some amendments don’t and that’s hogwash. They can’t have it both ways. As stated above, Madison only wrote the amendments due to the insistence of others as a further guarantee against the central government infringing upon the rights of each state. Therefore, I think one could safely take his stand with Madison and conclude that the “right to bear arms” extended beyond and before the second amendment and is a “God Given” inalienable right even before his composition of the first ten amendments. I would personally take my stand with the others who wanted the extra guarantee, but any discussion of the first ten amendments should recognize Madison’s viewpoint. You don’t have to agree with it, but it should at least be recognized and enter into any debate. If the “right to bear arms” is God given, then no government – federal, state, or local can or should be able to interfere with it. If it is accepted that the fourteenth amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states then you have accepted the Owellian concept that a set of amendments designed as a protection for the states from the federal government is now a set of amendments that can be used by the federal government as a weapon to be applied against the states. Liberals use this argument everyday to try and justify no prayer in school. How does prayer in an Oklahoma school equate to congress establishing a national religion? It doesn’t. A business owner can’t, and should not be able to, put up a sign that says “whites only.” Therefore, if we accept that the “right to keep and bear arms” is God given and an inalienable right, it should only logically follow that business owners should not be allowed to put up gun buster signs. So, when those signs go up, I would respectfully submit that my constitutional rights have been adversely affected. Telling me I should just go do business elsewhere is like telling me to go eat at a different restaurant because establishment "a" won't allow me in because of the color of my skin. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Why I was against open carry
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom