I can't see how the 2nd Amendment is something that is to be left up to the States. It doesn't state anything about "Congress shall write no law..." but simply "...shall not be infringed." When the States made the decision to ratify the US Constitution and join the Union, they agreed to abide by the instructions outlined in the Constitution. Upon doing so, they are making the agreement that whatever is not specifically stated in the Constitution is left up to them to decide, as per the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, an Amendment the States agreed upon to follow, specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore they are prohibited from infringing upon that right. It makes no sense to argue that the Constitution allows for the States to prohibit firearms while having an Amendment specifically stating that right shall not be infringed. If that was the case, then what is the point of even having a 2nd Amendment? It's like saying the States can pass laws to prevent people from going to church, having a trial by jury, or being able to criticize their government leaders since the Constitution doesn't specifically state the States cannot do it. They were written to protect all Americans' life, liberty, and property, and the 2nd Amendment is the one to defend life, liberty, and property. Undermining the 2nd Amendment only weakens the foundation of the entire Document.
Octo wins the thread.
"I like my guns and Bible. Ain't gonna give 'em up!" Herman Cain
Herman Cain: 'I Like My Guns And My Bible'
"I like my guns and Bible. Ain't gonna give 'em up!" Herman Cain
Herman Cain: 'I Like My Guns And My Bible'
How about kids? The 2A doesn't say anything about not letting kids buy guns with their paper route money. Should a ten-year-old be able to walk into a gun store without the knowledge or approval of his parents, and buy a Hi-Point, or worse, a Glock?
What about driver's license? Every state has regulations about how it's awarded. Is there a ban on driver's license? Or a ban on cars?
Sure, you can regulate something to death, which is what you're talking about, but not all regulations are "regulations to death."
Da Bing
Check this out:I was trying to find any new info on him since his Wolf Blitzer comments. I was hoping he would clarify his position which is something he will need to do IMO.
I like a lot of things he says and Perry has done a lot of damage with his immigration debacle. Paul is still a favorite.
I'd just like to hear more from Cain and if anyone can provide links to any further statements by him on the issue.
Plus I'd rather not wade through 4 pages of barstool debate about the 14th.
Just so you know if you vote for Cain you will be voting for one of the biggest wall street insiders that is running. Cain was the director of the Kansas city branch of the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is the only hope this country has.... know if I'm voting for Barney Fife, or Howdy Doody. So it'll be Cain.
Cain is a wall street insider. The privately owned central bank called the federal reserve is responsible for the death of our economy. We must end the fed if we ever want to be a sovereign nation again, not part of the global government, and global banking system that is coming. The last thin we can do is elect an ex-director of the federal reserve to be president. Ron Paul is the only choice to get our country back. Watch the documentary on you tube called "Money Masters". It is a great history lesson about the federal reserve, central banks, and currency. Very interesting.
Prison Planet.com » Herman Cain’s Hidden Nine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs