The Right To Bear Arms

[regent]

The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.

dear, only the treasonous liberals on the court feel self-ordained such that the Constitution can mean anythng they want it to mean. Why do you think liberals fight so hard to get them on the court???

 

[whitehall]

"The right to free speech". The left has been picking that Amendment to death for years. Does it mean the "right to liberal free speech"?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take?

dear, most universities already have a police force, often armed. If they need more and have no money they can train teachers or students. Its very very possible while changing the Constitution is not. Got it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.

This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.

The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.

The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.

This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.

The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.

The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.

This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgccp0RB6K4]The Right to Arm Bears: The Right to Bear Arms - YouTube[/ame]

 

[regent]

The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.

This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.

The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.

The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.

This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.

Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.

The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.

The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.

This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.

Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?

Yes

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.

Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?

Yes

pretty much.

 

[regent]

Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?

Yes

pretty much.

Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if they do not know the answer. Good premise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.

The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.

The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.

This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.

Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?

If you have to ask these questionss you cannot possibly fathom the answers.

 

[regent]

This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.

Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?

If you have to ask these questionss you cannot possibly fathom the answers.

So where is it written in the constitution that the Supreme Court shall interpret the Constitution? Of course, it is not written in the constitution. So the next question, how did the Court decide it had that power?

 

[Billo_Really]

The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.

If ordered by their State militia they can.

 

[Billo_Really]

If ordered by their State militia they can.

Not if the federal government nationalizes them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If ordered by their State militia they can.

Not if the federal government nationalizes them.

There is a militia called the unorganized militia Try that with them see what happens.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes

pretty much.

Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if they do not know the answer. Good premise.

Did I ask a question?

 

[regent]

pretty much.

Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if they do not know the answer. Good premise.

Did I ask a question?

No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.

Can you provide documentation, or are we supposed to take your word for it?