Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG
I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights.
|
I'm going to disagree just a bit with this. The problem doesn't come when "solutions" that aren't really solutions are "suggested." The problem comes when solutions that aren't really solutions are adopted. It's a distinction that matters, I think, because the former is focused on inhibiting the discussion while the latter focuses on effective decision-making.
NPR had what I thought was
a good interview with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-WV), who has a A-rating from the NRA, on Wednesday. This part particularly resonated with me:
SIEGEL: Can you go so far as to say there should be a real limit, as there used to be, on how big a magazine you can use?
MANCHIN: What I will say is I want to sit down with the people that want 10 or more rounds. I want to hear. I don't know. I want to hear their reasoning, and I think that's a conversation that we need to have, Robert, and I keep saying that.
SIEGEL: What I hear you saying is it's time to sit down and talk with people on all sides, but I don't hear you saying that you're bringing a strong belief in what could or should be banned right now into those talks.
MANCHIN: Robert, I think if we have people coming with preset notions and basically their minds made up, the wrong people are coming to the table. . . . You know, if you can't have - and I told Senator Feinstein. I said, Dianne, you've been working on this for quite some time. It's very near and dear to you, and I respect that. And I want to learn more and see where you're coming from. On the other hand, I want my friends at the NRA and all of us sitting down so you can hear what they're coming and what they see around this country.
I think he's right. If people come to the table with their minds already made up, whether about what the answers are or what the answers aren't, then the wrong people are at the table.
Quote:
|
The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level.
|
Not quite. The Bill of Rights itself only restricts the powers of the federal government, and courts consistently held that until the end of the 19th Century.
But starting the 1920s, courts have held the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, "incorporates" some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and imposes on state and local governments the same restrictions imposed on the federal government. It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
So the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government. Most, but not all portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to have been incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hybrid Mode
