Author Topic: Am I understanding this correctly, Herman Cain saying that states can ban guns  (Read 3468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10265
  • Gender: Male
If Cain thinks that states can ban guns then he is an idiot!!!! The 2nd amendment clearly lays out our right to bear arms as an unalienable right guaranteed under the CONSTITUTION. Then the 10th amendment clearly states that all powers NOT granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and the people. According to the CONSTITUTION we all have the right to bear arms no matter what state we live in. The BIll of Rights guarantees that no Federal or State government can infringe upon these rights!!! Wake up people and think for yourselves! Read and understand the constitution and then things like this become very simple to understand.
but the vast majority of people in this country are "chicken" and will sit and watch while our rights are stripped away and do nothing but talk it to death.
obama stated the the Constitution was a flawed document and not a single elected official took him to task for it.  the founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
there is not enough judges in this country that will stand behind the Constitution.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO STOP THEM.   I'm not chicken.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline Empty Quiver

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
I believe the federal gov't does not possess the right to limit gun ownership is how the 2A is written. I am far from a scholar though.


Additionally as time has passed the feds have gotten MUCH more power over FAR more things than the framers intended. I'm not going so far as to say everything the fed has assumed control of they need to get out of, but states rights have been beaten down to the point they are mearly speaking points and rarely have any power.


It was assumed the states would not be so foolish as to limit gun ownership. However central gov't re: kings, were known to want the subjects unarmed. Citizens however were not about to let themselves be treated as subjects. The states had kicked one tyrants aspen out of the country and were not about to have that problem with another long distance leader re: the federal gov't.  You must remember the states are every bit as big as the European countries they had left behind, and they pretty much intended to run themselves as such. The federal union was more like a NATO pact of the time.


This is my humble opinion, feel free to correct me. I'm no scholar but that is the jist of what I have taken from the history I have explored.
**Concealed Carry...Because when seconds count help is only minutes away**