General Discussion

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)

13. Federal supremacy. The Constitution always trumps "states' rights".

Mon Apr 7, 2014, 10:47 PM

Apr 2014

And arguing that states should have the right to, say, impose more stringent gun control laws than the prevailing interpretation of the Second Amendment allows for, opens the door for a lot of other "states' rights" laws. If states can ignore the Second Amendment, can they ignore the Fourteenth? The First? The rest of the constitution?

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the Second Amendment be Abolished or Defended? [View all] Skip Intro Apr 2014 OP

Other. Amended... El Supremo Apr 2014 #1

Interesting... cherokeeprogressive Apr 2014 #19

+1, n/t RKP5637 Apr 2014 #37

The 2nd Amendment should be defended at all costs LittleBlue Apr 2014 #2

Excellent points. n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #3

How does abolishing the 2nd Amendment mean taking away guns? onehandle Apr 2014 #4

What would be the point of abolishing the right to bear arms LittleBlue Apr 2014 #11

Often overlooked Puzzledtraveller Apr 2014 #14

Yep, it would be a huge black market! Excellent points! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2014 #29

Abolished. The 2nd Amendment overpowers 'states rights' not to mention jurisdictions rights. onehandle Apr 2014 #5

Federal supremacy. The Constitution always trumps "states' rights". Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #13

Oh yeah Duckhunter935 Apr 2014 #15

Do you not support incorporation of rights by the 14th Amendment? NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #17

So few do... cherokeeprogressive Apr 2014 #67

Sorry you don't like the results of the poll so far, and must cry foul rather Skip Intro Apr 2014 #20

I'm not even a gun type person, but abolishing the 2nd amendment would RKP5637 Apr 2014 #35

wishful thinking pipoman Apr 2014 #23

if they take away our guns the Communist will come in and take over anyway Douglas Carpenter Apr 2014 #6

No, I'll have to get another. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #7

Only certain people can legally have guns now, despite your reading comprehension abilities. nt Electric Monk Apr 2014 #8

Personal insult aside, I should have revised that choice, but votes had already been cast. Skip Intro Apr 2014 #16

Law enforcement is the last place expansion of guns should occur. A HERETIC I AM Apr 2014 #53

Repealed. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #9

Actually the National Guard is more like a reserve unit. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #18

And the USA has a standing army. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #25

The idea was to have citizens who were familiar with arms and could readily form into militias NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #31

"If we were invaded"...by whom? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #40

Ask residents of Gettysburg or Antietem (or St. Alban's, VT, even...) Recursion Apr 2014 #43

Battles fought by militia units in Federal service, akin to the modern National Guard? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #54

Or the Whiskey Rebellion Recursion Apr 2014 #56

It's still in law just in case. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #44

Actually, it isn't very relevant at all. Not unless you happen to be a strict constructionist. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #50

The intent is needed to show that while technology changed, the right still applies NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #52

Have you actually read the Constitution? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #58

Yes I have, multiple times and completely. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #60

The governors of the respective states appoint the officers of their state National Guards. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #62

And on that we have to differ NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #64

You can differ if you want, it doesn't make you right: Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #71

I am going to edit because I need to research more before commenting oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #10

It should be defended Chisox08 Apr 2014 #12

Always the same results every time pipoman Apr 2014 #21

Defended. Jasana Apr 2014 #22

needs to be rewritten so stupid people can understand it Skittles Apr 2014 #24

WIN Electric Monk Apr 2014 #26

. hrmjustin Apr 2014 #30

nailed it Puzzledtraveller Apr 2014 #46

Agreed davidpdx Apr 2014 #74

"Stupid people" like Justice Stevens? beevul Apr 2014 #76

other: defended, within reason. dionysus Apr 2014 #27

The poll excludes any number of options that are not "abolish" or "defend." Maedhros Apr 2014 #28

at the very least, it needs a grammar check yurbud Apr 2014 #73

The 2nd Amendment is a red herring here Recursion Apr 2014 #32

It needs to be clarified, it's grammatically ambiguous in modern english yodermon Apr 2014 #33

Well regulated goes back to the Revolution. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #39

It should only be defended out of fear of a zombie apocalypse. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #34

I'd settle for it being understood. rug Apr 2014 #36

2nd Amendment Supporters are in the majority on DU as I type this. Skip Intro Apr 2014 #38

The top option has 54% as I post this, for clarity. nt Electric Monk Apr 2014 #41

Top option is "Defended, not abolished." OP has not been edited n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #47

Your post (#38) has been, though. nt Electric Monk Apr 2014 #48

Sure has. You got a point in there somewhere? Skip Intro Apr 2014 #49

The top option (defend) has 58% as I post this, for clarity. nt Skip Intro Apr 2014 #51

74% if we look only at option one and "abolish" NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #70

reminds me of Christie and his report Skittles Apr 2014 #42

Now you hate me again, don't you? n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #45

What's the argument/discussion? flvegan Apr 2014 #55

Um, whether the 2nd Amendment be abolished or defended. Seems pretty clear to me. n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #57

You don't have one, cool. flvegan Apr 2014 #59

Hey dude - it's a poll with clear choices. That's enough for me. Sorry it isn't enough for you. Skip Intro Apr 2014 #63

"Defend" the 2nd amendement? Oakenshield Apr 2014 #61

"Would the NRA trolls kindly sod off?" Name three- and show your work... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #65

Amended so that... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #66

Just interpret it as written. See Justice Stevens' in Heller, and other 3 sensible Justices. Hoyt Apr 2014 #68

The same justice stevens that said this? beevul Apr 2014 #75

i don't know anybody who defends it as it is written veganlush Apr 2014 #69

It should be amended or clarified as to what (well regulated) means. doc03 Apr 2014 #72

Replaced or abolished. mwrguy Apr 2014 #77

In its present form, it's a complete anachronism Warpy Apr 2014 #78

it should be clarified so as not to be interpreted that common sense controls, regulation, Douglas Carpenter Apr 2014 #79

sorry locking azurnoir Apr 2014 #80