Roy Moore: "Immorality Sweeps Over The Land"

[martybegan]

So again, if the 14th doesn't extend the 2nd amendment to the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?

Again, why should it?

I don't think you are getting the question.....

You are asking me to prove something I don't believe. Forcing states to recognize NATIONAL citizenship shouldn't have been required in the 1st place.

But there has to be a mechanism to allow people to exercise their federal rights without State interference.

Is that what you think the 14th amendment did?

It's what it's being applied as, and its far less of a stretch as an interpretation than we see from the current crop of activist judges.

 

[ding]

Again, why should it?

I don't think you are getting the question.....

You are asking me to prove something I don't believe. Forcing states to recognize NATIONAL citizenship shouldn't have been required in the 1st place.

But there has to be a mechanism to allow people to exercise their federal rights without State interference.

Is that what you think the 14th amendment did?

It's what it's being applied as, and its far less of a stretch as an interpretation than we see from the current crop of activist judges.

I understand they are misapplying the 14th. I don't agree with it.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Wow the Democrat Bigots have such a fanatical hatred for Christians that it's scary

 

[martybegan]

I don't think you are getting the question.....

You are asking me to prove something I don't believe. Forcing states to recognize NATIONAL citizenship shouldn't have been required in the 1st place.

But there has to be a mechanism to allow people to exercise their federal rights without State interference.

Is that what you think the 14th amendment did?

It's what it's being applied as, and its far less of a stretch as an interpretation than we see from the current crop of activist judges.

I understand they are misapplying the 14th. I don't agree with it.

Again, without the 14th, what is stopping States from Banning gun ownership?

 

[bodecea]

Wow the Democrat Bigots have such a fanatical hatred for Christians that it's scary

I DO know that many con-servatives who call themselves christians have this need to feel persecuted.

 

[ding]

You are asking me to prove something I don't believe. Forcing states to recognize NATIONAL citizenship shouldn't have been required in the 1st place.

But there has to be a mechanism to allow people to exercise their federal rights without State interference.

Is that what you think the 14th amendment did?

It's what it's being applied as, and its far less of a stretch as an interpretation than we see from the current crop of activist judges.

I understand they are misapplying the 14th. I don't agree with it.

Again, without the 14th, what is stopping States from Banning gun ownership?

The 2nd Amendment.

The 14th should never have been needed.

 

[martybegan]

But there has to be a mechanism to allow people to exercise their federal rights without State interference.

Is that what you think the 14th amendment did?

It's what it's being applied as, and its far less of a stretch as an interpretation than we see from the current crop of activist judges.

I understand they are misapplying the 14th. I don't agree with it.

Again, without the 14th, what is stopping States from Banning gun ownership?

The 2nd Amendment.

The 14th should never have been needed.

How would the 2nd amendment do that if not incorporated to the States?

 

[ding]

Is that what you think the 14th amendment did?

It's what it's being applied as, and its far less of a stretch as an interpretation than we see from the current crop of activist judges.

I understand they are misapplying the 14th. I don't agree with it.

Again, without the 14th, what is stopping States from Banning gun ownership?

The 2nd Amendment.

The 14th should never have been needed.

How would the 2nd amendment do that if not incorporated to the States?

It was ratified by the states.

 

[martybegan]

It's what it's being applied as, and its far less of a stretch as an interpretation than we see from the current crop of activist judges.

I understand they are misapplying the 14th. I don't agree with it.

Again, without the 14th, what is stopping States from Banning gun ownership?

The 2nd Amendment.

The 14th should never have been needed.

How would the 2nd amendment do that if not incorporated to the States?

It was ratified by the states.

Yes, but it doesn't reference them, and if you believe in strict federalism, without the 14th the federal amendments don't hold the States to the same standard as they do the feds.

The 1st was ratified by the States, yet at the time of signing some still had State Religions.

 

[ding]

I understand they are misapplying the 14th. I don't agree with it.

Again, without the 14th, what is stopping States from Banning gun ownership?

The 2nd Amendment.

The 14th should never have been needed.

How would the 2nd amendment do that if not incorporated to the States?

It was ratified by the states.

Yes, but it doesn't reference them, and if you believe in strict federalism, without the 14th the federal amendments don't hold the States to the same standard as they do the feds.

The 1st was ratified by the States, yet at the time of signing some still had State Religions.

Marty the establishment clause does not apply to the states.

 

[martybegan]

Again, without the 14th, what is stopping States from Banning gun ownership?

The 2nd Amendment.

The 14th should never have been needed.

How would the 2nd amendment do that if not incorporated to the States?

It was ratified by the states.

Yes, but it doesn't reference them, and if you believe in strict federalism, without the 14th the federal amendments don't hold the States to the same standard as they do the feds.

The 1st was ratified by the States, yet at the time of signing some still had State Religions.

Marty the establishment clause does not apply to the states.

Before the 14th yes. Now a federal citizen expects their freedom of Religion from both levels of government.

 

[ding]

The 2nd Amendment.

The 14th should never have been needed.

How would the 2nd amendment do that if not incorporated to the States?

It was ratified by the states.

Yes, but it doesn't reference them, and if you believe in strict federalism, without the 14th the federal amendments don't hold the States to the same standard as they do the feds.

The 1st was ratified by the States, yet at the time of signing some still had State Religions.

Marty the establishment clause does not apply to the states.

Before the 14th yes. Now a federal citizen expects their freedom of Religion from both levels of government.

That's not how the 14th was intended by the framers of the 14th.

 

[ding]

See failed Blaine amendment.

 

[martybegan]

How would the 2nd amendment do that if not incorporated to the States?

It was ratified by the states.

Yes, but it doesn't reference them, and if you believe in strict federalism, without the 14th the federal amendments don't hold the States to the same standard as they do the feds.

The 1st was ratified by the States, yet at the time of signing some still had State Religions.

Marty the establishment clause does not apply to the states.

Before the 14th yes. Now a federal citizen expects their freedom of Religion from both levels of government.

That's not how the 14th was intended by the framers of the 14th.

Then how was it intended? It was a restriction on the States.

 

[martybegan]

See failed Blaine amendment.

That was an attack on private parochial schools.

 

[ding]

It was ratified by the states.

Yes, but it doesn't reference them, and if you believe in strict federalism, without the 14th the federal amendments don't hold the States to the same standard as they do the feds.

The 1st was ratified by the States, yet at the time of signing some still had State Religions.

Marty the establishment clause does not apply to the states.

Before the 14th yes. Now a federal citizen expects their freedom of Religion from both levels of government.

That's not how the 14th was intended by the framers of the 14th.

Then how was it intended? It was a restriction on the States.

What happened after the slaves were emancipated?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but it doesn't reference them, and if you believe in strict federalism, without the 14th the federal amendments don't hold the States to the same standard as they do the feds.

The 1st was ratified by the States, yet at the time of signing some still had State Religions.

Marty the establishment clause does not apply to the states.

Before the 14th yes. Now a federal citizen expects their freedom of Religion from both levels of government.

That's not how the 14th was intended by the framers of the 14th.

Then how was it intended? It was a restriction on the States.

What happened after the slaves were emancipated?

You are going to have to make your own point, I'm not the type to get led into statements. Stop being coy.

 

[ding]

Marty the establishment clause does not apply to the states.

Before the 14th yes. Now a federal citizen expects their freedom of Religion from both levels of government.

That's not how the 14th was intended by the framers of the 14th.

Then how was it intended? It was a restriction on the States.

What happened after the slaves were emancipated?

You are going to have to make your own point, I'm not the type to get led into statements. Stop being coy.

If you don't understand why the 14th was written then you don't know the intent of the 14th.

 

[martybegan]

Before the 14th yes. Now a federal citizen expects their freedom of Religion from both levels of government.

That's not how the 14th was intended by the framers of the 14th.

Then how was it intended? It was a restriction on the States.

What happened after the slaves were emancipated?

You are going to have to make your own point, I'm not the type to get led into statements. Stop being coy.

If you don't understand why the 14th was written then you don't know the intent of the 14th.

The intent was to stop the States from screwing with the freemen by removing federal rights from them. To do this the mechanism was to grant them and all citizens their federal "privileges and immunities" regardless of what the States do.

Applying that idea to the concept of incorporation isn't a very big leap.

 

[ding]

That's not how the 14th was intended by the framers of the 14th.

Then how was it intended? It was a restriction on the States.

What happened after the slaves were emancipated?

You are going to have to make your own point, I'm not the type to get led into statements. Stop being coy.

If you don't understand why the 14th was written then you don't know the intent of the 14th.

The intent was to stop the States from screwing with the freemen by removing federal rights from them. To do this the mechanism was to grant them and all citizens their federal "privileges and immunities" regardless of what the States do.

Applying that idea to the concept of incorporation isn't a very big leap.

Yes, it is a huge leap. Those rights you were talking about were rights of citizens. They weren't recognizing them as citizens. They shouldn't have even needed the 14th. That's not the call of the states.

Neither is the 2nd Amendment. At least not when it pertains to the intention of the framers. They framed it and the states ratified it.