BadBlue – My News Aggregator Of Choice


2nd Amendment And The States

At the risk of boring the few regular readers I have accumulated on Political Realities, let me touch once again on the 2nd Amendment and the all-out assault against it that is presently taking place. To be sure, it is a highly charged debate. Many liberals believe no one should have guns, while conservatives believe it is our God-given right to keep and bear arms. And that’s not even considering the 2nd Amendment, put into place to protect those rights. Let’s review what the 2nd Amendment says, shall we?

klonopin online no prescription

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

ambien online no prescription

2nd AmendmentThe United States Supreme Court has already said that the federal government could not infringe upon that right, but that the states could place reasonable restrictions upon the ownership of guns. That means could have 50 different versions of legislation that either enhances or restricts gun ownership, depending on which state you live in. We have already witnessed history being made as New York Governor Andrew Cumo pushed through a very restrictive gun-control bill. He was so anxious to get it enshrined into law that he forgot to exempt the men and women who are members of the various police departments across the state. Maryland seems to be next in line to restrict gun ownership. Which state will be the first to attempt to ban guns completely?

buy phentermine online without prescription

On the other side of the spectrum, you have states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas, who not only believe strongly in our 2nd Amendment rights, they have taken steps to protect those rights. I mention those states, not because they are the only states where the 2nd Amendment is cherished, but because I live in Oklahoma and work in Arkansas. And Texas, will everyone knows about Texas. If liberals can celebrate gun control legislation in the states that feel it necessary to pass such restrictive and unnecessary laws, then please allow me to celebrate when states decide it is right and proper to protect the 2nd Amendment and the gun ownership rights of their citizens.

buy valium online without prescription

I was watching a video of a 2nd Amendment rally in New York last night and someone was interviewing two women who had come to the rally to support their 2nd Amendment rights. They were asked various questions about how they felt about the 2nd Amendment and if there should be any restrictions placed upon their rights to keep and bear arms. At the end, one of them spoke up and plainly said she was considering moving out of the state, preferably to a state that was more supportive of the 2nd Amendment. That started me thinking even stronger along these lines.

buy tramadol no prescription

As more and more states begin to draw their lines in the sand, on one side or the other of the 2nd Amendment, is it possible that some states who restrict those rights will see a population decrease? Could it be that many Americans feel so strongly about their 2nd Amendment rights that they will be willing to pack their belongings and move to a state that will be friendlier to the fact that they own guns? It has happened before, when some states have placed such a tax burden on their citizens. Those citizens decided to follow their money and moved to states that were less inclined to tax them to death. I can’t help but wonder if some Americans who believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment will not follow the same course.

buy klonopin online

It is a known fact that states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas, as well as a big chunk of the South and some of the West, are much friendlier to the idea of gun ownership by their citizens. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a sudden population increase as Americans decide to move to where they can feel more like real Americans. And to be honest, I wouldn’t blame them for doing just that. In fact, I would welcome them to our state.

valium for sale

What do you think? Is that idea so unreasonable or far-fetched?

About LD Jackson

ativan online no prescription

LD Jackson has written 2053 posts in this blog.

buy xanax online

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

buy valium onlinebuy valium online
  • Mike

    It’s not unreasonable or far-fetched; but I do think the Texas attorney general may have gone a step too far last week when he started placing ads on news websites directed at gun owners in NYC and Albany inviting them to move to Texas.

    I wonder if the states that cherish the Second Amendment will respect the decision of states that choose to have tighter gun restrictions. I strongly believe the federal government shouldn’t be in the middle of this but leaving it to the states does create a mess for truckers and travelers as they cross state lines.

    • That is a very good point. Leaving the 2nd Amendment to the states opens up a lot of different scenarios for discussion. It is something to think about and it will almost certainly cause headaches for a lot of people who travel regularly.

  • Truckers aren’t allowed to carry a firearm in the rig, to the best of my knowledge. I’ve been at it for 23 years. As to the 2nd Amendment, move to one with a strong 2nd Amendment of their own. Wisconsin’s mirrors that of the US Constitution, and we finally have concealed carry. If their state doesn’t have one, you either get one passed, or move.

    • I wasn’t aware of the fact that truckers can not carry a weapon, but I’m not surprised. I know they used to, but times have changed.

      • Yep, USDOT and the old ICC made it so, Interstate drivers can’t carry even with a CHL… Most DO carry though, better to be tried by 12 than carried by six..

        • I was not aware of that, but I suppose it makes sense, in the context of the difficulty of staying compliant with the gun laws in several different states. Considering the dangers that could be lurking around any corner, I think I would opt for the rule of 12.

  • I support the idea of freedom lovers moving to where they are most free.

    I have a question, however. States have no more right to abridge the constitution than the federal government. Why hasn’t the NRA challenged more of these state laws in the federal courts?

    • From my understanding of the Supreme Court ruling, it has been determined that the states can place reasonable restrictions upon the 2nd Amendment. I don’t necessarily agree that should be the case, for one simple reason. The definition of what is reasonable can be far-reaching. New York Governor Andrew Cumo and the New York State Legislature seems to think the bill they passed is reasonable. I would argue it is nothing of the sort.

  • I think it is quite possible Larry and that is exactly why the founders thought it so important to have strong state governments and a weak central government. People can move freely between the states and chose to live in a state that best represents them, but the feds have grown too powerful and are trying to make the states indistinguishable. As you mentioned, the SCOTUS has ruled the states can pass reasonable gun laws but didn’t define what that meant. I expect challenges to all these new state laws as they continue to push the boundaries.

    • I hope someone files a lawsuit in New York as soon as this new law takes affect. Legislation like that needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible. The longer it is left in place, the less likely it will ever be struck down. And besides, someone should challenge it, just because. States that believe it is okay to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment should be made aware of the error of their ways.

  • Mike

    We need a lawyer to explain this a little better but I think the difficulty of bringing these cases to the SC is finding a specific case that shows beyond reasonable doubt that the law has violated Second Amendment rights. It’s not enough to assert your rights have been violated — you have to prove it. I’m trying, for instance, to think of a case where the claimant to show definitive proof to the court that the introduction of a high capacity magazine ban has violated their Second Amendment right. I just can’t think of a convincing scenario. It would probably have to be a person who was attacked in their home, who reached for a gun and fired a full 10 shots, and then was shot and seriously wounded or killed when they were trying to reload. It’s a tough case to make. And that will be the same for each individual element of gun control laws — probably taking the entire NY State law to court as unconstitutional wouldn’t work. It’ll be interesting to see if someone tries.

    • I would be interested to see what a lawyer thinks about these scenarios.

      As for challenging the New York law in court, I realize what you are saying, but I disagree. Clearly, the law infringes on the 2nd Amendment. I can’t see how any other conclusion could be reached.

  • Larry, regarding the proposed gun ban I must quote Japanese admiral Yamamoto:

    “I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

    I hope this is the Right.

  • Billiam

    The 2nd Amendment was originally applied only to the Federal Government, as was the rest of the ‘Bill of Rights’. The BoR was a limitation on the Federal Government as it was the States that were to be sovereign. Hence the need for the states to have 2nd Amendment equivalents in their Constitutions. The Incorporation Doctrine didn’t start until the ’20’s I believe.

    • I had not thought of it in that way. Good point!

  • Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Think outside of the box edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL()

  • P. A. Henhawk

    There is something terribly wrong with a system where the majority pay for what the few do.

    Further, to allow polititions to remain in office when they have violated the 2nd Amendment by not upholding that which they have sworn to protect will certainly be our downfall.

    Secret meetings, and voting late at night by politicians w/o the public and others concerned must be abolished. The same for President and politicians.

    There must be somewhere a law that these policies are all wrong. If the Cuomo NY State Gun Control Laws aren’t beaten by our populace I will definitely leave the state and there are others talking the same.

    Thanks for listening to my rants.

    • You mention just a few of the things that our politicians do that should never take place. If we fail to hold them accountable for their actions, then we are to blame for the consequences of those actions.

      Thanks for commenting on Political Realities.

  • MIKE

    I came across this site by accident but could not help but see the error in somes thinking. Some seem to think that states should be granted the right to restrict rights granted by the constitution. This is not so a state does not have the authority to restrict rights granted us by the constitution. Same as the federal government does not have the right to restrict rights granted to us. To allow any state to restrict the rights and say it is justified because the majority of the populace agrees is dnagerous and flawed reasoning. The majority regardless of how great never has the right to remove the right from the other. Can ones house simply be confiscated because all of the other neighbore don’t agree with were he chose to build it? Can he be hung simply because all present dislike his demenor? Of course not. You see a right is simply that it should not be removed or restricted simply because the majority deems it so. If the right is infringed upon is the act itself is unconstitutional and illegal. Understandably our government has been restricting it for years so we have accepted it for instance fully auto rifles. That to is a right however since so few would choose to actualy own one or could afford it a majority has forced its will upon those few who would have chosen to excercise that right, or the act of making it illegal to sell a firearm across state lines. We as Americans need to get out of this line of thought that the majority can remove rights. Rights should not be stripped. We can change laws surely if those laws in themselves do not restrict our right. Constitutionally any state that infringes upon the rights of the people should have those law forcibly removed by the federal law. If federal law then state excercise their right to utilize constitutional authority to superceed the federal law. If both agree to stip rights granted by the constitution it then become the right and duty of WE THE PEOPLE to excercise Constitutional authority and remove by whatever means necessary the corrupt federal and state governing bodys that attempted to illegally remove the right guranteed us.