Absolutely correct. The Constitution is the law of the land, not just the federal Government.
Woody
Donald Trump: I’ll Sign National Reciprocity if It Reaches My Desk
- Thread starter RugersGR8
- Start Date
Absolutely correct. The Constitution is the law of the land, not just the federal Government.
Woody
It's not about having alternatives. It is about the prohibition upon a right. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute, inailenable, and protected as such in the Constitution. As long as any state is a member of the Union, any law in any state of the Union infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is null and void. Your opinion may differ from the facts but until there is a change in the Constitution, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms remains inviolate.
Another truth that needs to be exposed is that people are safer being armed as opposed to being disarmed. The death or wounding in every instance occuring in a "gun free zone" is a direct result of the lack of armed resistance. Any and all laws infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are a danger to the life of all of us.
Woody
You understand that I'm not the person you are fighting right? I'm just the guy that is making a point that fixing a symptom is not fixing a problem. Especially when we didn't really "fix" anything to start with.
For all the talk in your post about "absolute, inalienable and protected" and TDoug's post about the Constitution being supreme, we've passed away from that --- it's a fantasy nowadays. Next time you buy from a dealer look at the 4473 and remember it's an infringement. Next time you don't want to sell to a felon, remember that not doing so in an infringement on them. Next time you can't go to Walmart and buy full-auto, remember that is an infringement. Next time you can't add a can without a Form 1 or 4, you guessed it, that's an infringement.
And yet, oddly, that's law and people are abiding by it. Should you not like it, work against that. Work against it for alllllll you are worth, and try to do it WITHOUT adding more Constitutional issues on top of it which is what an imposition of national reciprocity would be. Not even driver's licenses are mandated at a federal level. That's a compact amongst the states.
Fatalism certainly won't fix it. Since you are labling the Second Amendment a fantasy, you are among whom I am fighting.
Woody
You can frame it however you want, but there is nothing in the Constitution that is "absolute, inalienable and protected". There is nothing about the Constitution that is supreme and not subject to hundreds of years of legislation and judicial interpretation. Take Coney-Barrett for instance. She bills herself as an originalist. But it wasn't until the 19th amendment that women could vote. How does that work? The same principle applied to the Second. It's been subjected to many stresses and tests over the years and that's how we've arrived where we are. To pretend otherwise is ultimately ignorant.
You sure can go out, make it your mission and champion repeal of allllllll the things that rustle your jimmies on that. Personally, I say start by getting the NGA overturned.... that'd make me happy. I want you to put your money where your mouth is and dedicate all your time and resources to repealing everything back to the point of 2A being supreme and unquestioned again. Back in the real world there's going to be plenty of us still existing and working to solidify current rights and rationally gain ground back.
How nice would it be if 2A advocates had a Bloomberg that pushed for exactly what you mentioned . . . unfortunately I think since that genie is already out of the bottle we're going to be forced to continue dealing with those infringements.
We do have such an advocate. ConstitutionalCowboy is here in this thread even.
If I had the kind of money Bloomberg, or Gates, or even Soros has, you'd be witnessing the restoration right now.
Woody
Well sure . . . we can all be advocates. Unfortunately we all don't have Bloomberg resources behind us . . . which is what I was really referring to.
