High court to define if gun rights apply to states

[Morpheus]

Ok I am wondering, am I like an idiot? Way off with my twisted understanding? I do not claim to have all of the answers. Shoot I really don't have many of them. But does anyone here believe anything of what I have said to be true? I joined this Great web site to learn about firearms and for the ability to purchase and sell them locally if needed. I have done that. I have also learned alot from this website and I appreciate the many intelligent people who post here. Thank you for putting up with an idiot like me! But to me with this up coming vote of the justices is like a smack in the face to our Freedoms as a people.

Example then I'll hush...

California had a citizens vote. Every eligible citizen had the chance to vote on if marriage was between a man and a women or if marriage could include a man and a man or a women and a women. The citizens voted that marriage was between a man and a women in the state of California. I do not remember the years but time passed like a few years the I think then the mayor decided that against what the people had voted he would let the men marry men and the women marry women. The people had already decided on it but there was again another vote. Now I say.. Whats up with that? The people voted and decided! I am not sure if it was the mayor or not but he over ruled the will of the people. The people voted again anyways and they again said NO! MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN!

I must be an idiot and need some understanding. Will someone PLEASE instruct me? Isn't this coming decision buy the justices in a since the same as the described above?

Hmm, another example is how Oregon voted YES for assisted suicide. I believe 3 times. Each time it passed, yet some person at the federal level decided that it wasn't legal for a state to do this. Hmm....

Of course, neither of these issues are in the US Constitution.

Thus, you would have to examine the individual state constitution to see if it allows a city, to supersede a state law. Yes, there are states where a City can overrule state laws. I believe, Illinois happens to be one of them.

 

[zeezee]

I don't disagree in theory. But the problem occurs when you try to prove legally. It is much easier to look at the something written down which supposedly everyone in the US follows and argue the points of that document.

Inalienable rights are all up to belief structure of the person who chooses to call them inalienable. There are clear examples of how different cultures have very different opinions on what inalienable rights exist.

Where as our US Constitution is the document which binds of our country together. Yes, there are ideals and beliefs behind it but it is (or should be) the condensed version of those beliefs and ideals which we all accept as our baseline.

But even then, we might disagree on how those are applied. Thus, the various crazy verdicts, laws, or enforcement policies. But then again, we do have three sections of government and they should, in theory balance their selves out... Right?

What is so hard about understanding inalienable rights? The right of man to defend himself as stated in the 2nd and free speach as defined in the first. Do I need a government, be it state or federal to define these with their tainted opinions? **** no! Remember the role of government is to govern, hence control the masses and the more they govern, the more they control.

 

[zeezee]

"Thus, you would have to examine the individual state constitution to see if it allows a city, to supersede a state law. Yes, there are states where a City can overrule state laws. I believe, Illinois happens to be one of them."
No government, city, state or federal should be allowed the power to take from us our inalienable rights. They can try and if WE THE PEOPLE allow it, who can we blame?

 

[Father of four]

Morpheus. (Quote: Where as our US Constitution is the document which binds of our country together. Yes, there are ideals and beliefs behind it but it is (or should be) the condensed version of those beliefs and ideals which we all accept as our baseline.

But even then, we might disagree on how those are applied. Thus, the various crazy verdicts, laws, or enforcement policies. But then again, we do have three sections of government and they should, in theory balance their selves out... Right?...End Quote)

Its those various crazy verdicts, laws, or enforcement policies that has and is continuing to be implemented by the few that is governing the whole! Dictating their verdicts, laws and enforcement policies that is in line with the Constitution from only the Courts, Elected Officials and the Enforcement point of view is one sided. We the people should have an equal right in it. If not more. WE THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE not they the government by the government. Right?

 

[Father of four]

Morpheus. (Quote: Thus, you would have to examine the individual state constitution to see if it allows a city, to supersede a state law. Yes, there are states where a City can overrule state laws. I believe, Illinois happens to be one of them. End Quote)

So what are we as a nation do if the county, city, state and country no longer runs or abides by those various Constitutions?

 

[Father of four]

Shouldn't it be the...

The People
then the city
then the county
then the state
then the States?

If we the people don't like it. Do we have the final say? Especially if we the people feel the government that works for us is not doing what we desire?

 

[Father of four]

Zeezee.
I don't think the government being local, state or federal was put together to govern the people. I believe it was made to do the will of the people.

 

[chris61182]

You don't seem to understand the problem with mob rule and why we have a representative government in the first place. So I'll use your first example as my example...

Example then I'll hush...

California had a citizens vote. Every eligible citizen had the chance to vote on if marriage was between a man and a women or if marriage could include a man and a man or a women and a women. The citizens voted that marriage was between a man and a women in the state of California. I do not remember the years but time passed like a few years the I think then the mayor decided that against what the people had voted he would let the men marry men and the women marry women. The people had already decided on it but there was again another vote. Now I say.. Whats up with that? The people voted and decided! I am not sure if it was the mayor or not but he over ruled the will of the people. The people voted again anyways and they again said NO! MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN!

Let's assume for a moment that gay marriage is an unenumerated inalienable right, you don't have to actually agree with that statement for this to work but just assume for now. It's not a good thing to allow 50.1% of the populace to determine this right should no longer be recognized. It is the government's job to slap this sort of thing down, to insure the rights of everyone, even if that right is unpopular.

Now putting the gay rights issue aside, that very same scenario is playing out with a poll on cnn regarding the Chicago handgun ban and our side is losing 51% to 49%. We're lucky that the right to bear arms is an enumerated right or else we'd be utterly screwed right now, tyranny of the majority would be ruling right now.

 

[Father of four]

The government's job should be there to do the will of the people. What ever the people decide. The government is people. But only a part of all the people of the USA. A smaller part. If the people decide that the government should be downsized for instance and then the government said no we need it bigger. Who gets the final say?

 

[Father of four]

And by the way if there were a vote for the people to decide. If I am on the losing side so be it. That is how a country that's run by the people do things. Call it mob rules or whatever, but that is exactly why and how the country was made. So we the people can do as we all see fit. And if government doesn't like it we tell them we are in control not them..MOB RULES.

 

[Father of four]

Did the government tell England to back off and leave us Americans alone without the rest of the countrymen s support? Did only the government decide what was best for the USA when it was going to be a war with them? We were once united together for FREEDOM. Not the making of laws.

 

[chris61182]

Did the government tell England to back off and leave us Americans alone without the rest of the countrymen s support? Did only the government decide what was best for the USA when it was going to be a war with them? We were once united together for FREEDOM. Not the making of laws.

Again your understanding of things is inherently flawed. The government actually did these things, not the people. It wasn't an elected government, it was the Continental Congresses, consisting of appointed reps, who told England where to stuff it. These same people then willingly gave up their power when they wielded it to write a wonderful utopian document we now call the Constitution. In which described our representative government we're blessed with, complete with limitations on its power. They then followed on with The Bill of Rights which was a further clarification of those limitations.

 

[Father of four]

Ok then I guess those representatives just decided to represent the people by themselves? No they were voted in to be representatives. And while they were representing the people, they did whatever they thought was right in there own eyes? Forgetting what the people wanted? NO! But see in those days they represented the people. Oh I guess I am inherently wrong in that also?

 

[Ravenous]

Now putting the gay rights issue aside, that very same scenario is playing out with a poll on cnn regarding the Chicago handgun ban and our side is losing 51% to 49%. We're lucky that the right to bear arms is an enumerated right or else we'd be utterly screwed right now, tyranny of the majority would be ruling right now.

Just splitting hairs but we are winning 52% to 48%....

 

[chris61182]

Ok then I guess those representatives just decided to represent the people by themselves? No they were voted in to be representatives. And while they were representing the people, they did whatever they thought was right in there own eyes? Forgetting what the people wanted? NO! But see in those days they represented the people. Oh I guess I am inherently wrong in that also?

Do you even know what appointed means?!

And no they didn't do the will of the people, they formed the United States and then went back to their respective states and told the people what they had done. "A republic if you can keep it"

 

[Father of four]

So chris61182. You would like the government to decide for all American people? And if so then why vote? What is the use if they have power over the people to do their own will. And WE THE PEOPLE are just stuck with it? That is not what the Constitution and the BILL OF RIGHTS say!

 

[chris61182]

Just splitting hairs but we are winning 52% to 48%....

And good thing too I hate it when my rights are at the whim of a majority.

 

[chris61182]

So chris61182. You would like the government to decide for all American people? And if so then why vote? What is the use if they have power over the people to do their own will. And WE THE PEOPLE are just stuck with it? That is not what the Constitution and the BILL OF RIGHTS say!

Not at all, that's the purpose of the constitution, it limits the power of the government. Whether that's corrupt politicians or an ignorant mob.

 

[Father of four]

You just don't get it do you? They were trusted by the people to go and combine with other appointed people that were representing the peoples ideas and opinions. You make it sound like they used free will to do whatever they wanted and then they went back to the people and said this is what we have decided and are making you do. I think not.

 

[chris61182]

You just don't get it do you? They were trusted by the people to go and combine with other appointed people that were representing the peoples ideas and opinions. You make it sound like they used free will to do whatever they wanted and then they went back to the people and said this is what we have decided and are making you do. I think not.

Again, do you even know what appointed means?!

And here's a hint, it's not synonymous with elected.