2nd amendment redundant

When the several sovereign states were creating the constition for the united states of America, they were very careful to grant their creation only a very small handful of legislative powers.

Some folks wanted a bill of rights to be included, in order to limit the powers of their creation. On the other hand, some said, "we don't need a bill of rights because we haven't given our creation any powers that might infringe upon our rights."

Yet today many people quibble about what the 2nd amendment means. That's fine, but even if there were no second amendment, the USGov would still have zero legislative authority to have any involvement in the people's ability to buy, sell, own, and use firearms.

 

where the second becomes incredibly important is in incorporation

 

Not to be a jerk, but incorporation is a crock of shart.

 

so you support a state being able to deny blacks freedom of speech, the right of assembly or the free worship of religion?

 

the bill of rights is a restriction on the USGov, not the states.

 

yep, and that was all it was until the 14th amendment was enacted

 

You didn't answer the question.

 

Since I believe the states, not the USGov, are sovereign, I have to say that I support the RIGHT to do such thing. I don't support such things, not do I think any state constitution would allow them, and even if a states constitution did allow it, they would never do it.

 

As I said, the incorporation doctrine is a crock. The 14th was a post-civil war amendment passed primarily to constitutionalize the civil rights act of 1866.

 

Interesting viewpoint. If the states have the authority to ignore 1st Amendment rights, they logically would have the rights to ignored them all. Blue states have a long history of ignoring the right protected by the Second Amendment. Is that okay with you? Can state police forces ignore the rights protected at the federal level by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments?

 

I would not be happy if that happened in my state, so I would move.

Every state has a bill of rights in their constitution.

Again, the bill of rights was intended to be a prohibition against USGov power.

 

and you oppose it?

 

The incorporation doctrine breaks the constitution, in my opinion. It turns the servant into the master.

 

well I would note that the STATES were the ones that ratified the 14th Amendment and I am ALL IN FAVOR of ANYTHING that increases FREEDOM of the individual over the POWER of government-state local or federal

 

They ratified an amendment that had nothing to do with incorporation. They ratified it to constitutionalize the civil rights act of 1866, which guaranteed the freed slaves basic rights, such as making contracts, travel, etc.

It’s a happy coincidence that incorporation has been used to subjugate the states with regards to firearms. But that does not negate the fact that the incorporation doctrine essentially destroys the federal system established by the founders and establishes a national government in which the states have become slaves of the USGov.