Do states have a right to flout 2A entitlements based on 10th amendment stipulations?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

May the record show that I had already removed my post before INVAR responded to it.  I had did so exactly for the reason you suggested, Mod3 -  I didn't want to drag the board or its ownership into controversy.   

Did he advocate violence against homosexuals? Just curious.

[INVAR]

Did he advocate violence against homosexuals? Just curious.

Yeah... me too.

I want to see where it is exactly that I am advocating people do harm to homosexuals, simply because they are homosexual.

[mountaineer]

Anndd ...

[LateForLunch]

Yeah... me too.

I want to see where it is exactly that I am advocating people do harm to homosexuals, simply because they are homosexual.

You say that like it's a bad thing!!

[Cyber Liberty]

I would appreciate showing me which posts I made that are considered 'threats'.

Because if stating openly on a public forum what the actual intent and purpose of the Second Amendment is, and pointing out blatant hypocrisy on a stated position is considered a 'threat' then we have become more subjugated to the Leftists like Jazzhead than I even imagined.

I'm not JH, but I could see how an overly-sensitive person might take this to be a "threat":

I advocate the use of deadly force against anyone or any agenda that seeks to impose itself upon me or my liberties.

In my personal opinion, I don't think so because it's rather general, but to someone who sees an evil under every right-wing rock (and is, in fact, engaged in imposing an agenda upon you) it might seem like a threat.  YMMV.

[Smokin Joe]

You say that like it's a bad thing!!

Meh. Some behaviours have their 'reward' built in.

[Jazzhead]

In my personal opinion, I don't think so because it's rather general, but to someone who sees an evil under every right-wing rock (and is, in fact, engaged in imposing an agenda upon you) it might seem like a threat.  YMMV.

This statement's not quite so general (from INVAR's post # 93):

And I am happy to use my open-carry firearms to ensure that the perverted culture you push on us is rejected when people like you attempt to impose it via tyrannical court diktat.

[Smokin Joe]

This statement's not quite so general (from INVAR's post # 93):

'...when people like you attempt to impose it via tyrannical court diktat.'

Are you trying to impose perversion by tyrannical court diktat?

[Cyber Liberty]

Like it or not, the exchange I drew attention to is probably what brought a Mod into the thread.  I'm not empowered to judge this exchange to see who's fault it is, I'm just pointing things out from a disinterested third party point of view.  It sounds like a shoe is fitting, and there's a reluctance to wear it.

I hope this doesn't cause a perfectly good thread to be locked.

[INVAR]

In my personal opinion, I don't think so because it's rather general, but to someone who sees an evil under every right-wing rock (and is, in fact, engaged in imposing an agenda upon you) it might seem like a threat.

Yes. 

Anyone advocating defending their liberties from Leftists imposing their agenda is of course going to be seen as and declared to be a threat needing to be reported to the feds for action.

It's what all Leftist snowflakes do.

It is ALWAYS the hallmark of Leftists (disguised or not) to project what they themselves are and what they themselves are doing or would like to do, upon those who do not agree with them.

[LateForLunch]

Meh. Some behaviours have their 'reward' built in.

Ah, yes. The proverbial Anally Injected Death Sentence (AIDS). Still around, BTW. The latest false announcement of a breakthrough sent the Gay Party circuit into overdrive again, just like every time before- keeping the core infection vector hot to stay on track for another 6 million deaths each year.

Want to see bad things happen to homos? Leave them to themselves.

[INVAR]

Want to see bad things happen to homos? Leave them to themselves.

I would love for nothing better than to leave those who practice such perverted behaviors to themselves, but that agenda of perversion will not allow or permit us to ignore, reject or refuse to acknowledge it. Rather they demand under penalty that we must recognize, condone, participate and celebrate their perversion.

So they get people like our resident Leftist to rally the courts to impose that behavior upon us while declaring traditional values and principles to be bigoted and criminal.

We face a tyranny far more meddlesome and intrusive that what our forbears ever did.

Which is why the wisdom of our Founders enshrined for us the right to defend ourselves against it.

Once it was made acceptable to restrict and infringe upon that natural right - it was inevitable that tyrants would seek to abolish that right by mountains of incremental restrictions relegating it to government grant via permission and license.

Which simply means you no longer possess a right, but a privilege the State can grant and take away at it's whim.

Which is what our resident Leftist apparently thinks they have authority to do.

[Jazzhead]

I would love for nothing better than to leave those who practice such perverted behaviors to themselves, but that agenda of perversion will not allow or permit us to ignore, reject or refuse to acknowledge it. Rather they demand under penalty that we must recognize, condone, participate and celebrate their perversion.

So they get people like our resident Leftist to rally the courts to impose that behavior upon us while declaring traditional values and principles to be bigoted and criminal.

And so that's why you say (in your post # 93) that you will be "happy to use" your firearms against "people like me"? 

 

And I am happy to use my open-carry firearms to ensure that the perverted culture you push on us is rejected when people like you attempt to impose it via tyrannical court diktat.

   

[txradioguy]

[Smokin Joe]

And so that's why you say (in your post # 93) that you will be "happy to use" your firearms against "people like me"? 

 

Open carry firearms may serve as a deterrent, just by their presence.

Plus, the statement is conditional.

ARE you attempting to impose perversion via tyrannical court diktat?
If not, reach down in your britches and get the knot out of your skivvies. Enough already.

[INVAR]

And so that's why you say (in your post # 93) that you will be "happy to use" your firearms against "people like me"? 

I guess if you know you are attempting to impose tyranny on others, I can see why you would be upset and frightened over an assertion and acknowledgement of exactly why that natural right is enshrined in the supreme law of the land which may not be infringed.

The very fact we are armed is what dissuades mischief and efforts to do what people like you would do when given a chance.

Open carry merely advertises that fact and I eagerly support that exercise.

[txradioguy]

What does any of that have to do with States rights or the 2nd Amendment?

@Jazzhead you keep harping on that one issue...are you trying to get this thread locked?

[Mod2]

The topic is about guns, not gays.  Whoever keeps bringing it up, please stop it immediately.  If this thread gets locked, some people are going to be as well.

Stay on the dad-gummed topic!

[INVAR]

What does any of that have to do with States rights or the 2nd Amendment?

@Jazzhead you keep harping on that one issue...are you trying to get this thread locked?

I admit this one is my fault.  He was busy touting federalism as a state's right to reject Texas gun culture from existing in his state of PA.

I pointed out that he rejects federalism when it comes to imposing San Francisco homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.

Hypocrisy.

That is what I was pointing out.

[txradioguy]

I admit this one is my fault.  He was busy touting federalism as a state's right to reject Texas gun culture from existing in his state of PA.

I pointed out that he rejects federalism when it comes to imposing San Francisco homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.

Hypocrisy.

That is what I was pointing out.

Not sure why he's slamming the great state of Texas...must be some Yankee jealously.

But regardless...it's very clear in the 2nd Amendment that everyone...EVERYONE shall have the right to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed upon.

And that includes any state attempting to use the 9th or 10th Amendment to usurp or contravene what is clearly written in the 2nd Amendment.


Not sure why it's so hard to understand or what's so complicated about it. 

[Smokin Joe]

Not sure why he's slamming the great state of Texas...must be some Yankee jealously.

But regardless...it's very clear in the 2nd Amendment that everyone...EVERYONE shall have the right to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed upon.

And that includes any state attempting to use the 9th or 10th Amendment to usurp or contravene what is clearly written in the 2nd Amendment.


Not sure why it's so hard to understand or what's so complicated about it. 

The ninth or tenth don't supersede the stipulation in the Second that it is a Right of the people.  If anyone recalls the old diagram about the power structure in the US, "The People" are at the top. (Conveniently for the marxist slow putsch, that part is left out nowadays.)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

[Doug Loss]

I admit this one is my fault.  He was busy touting federalism as a state's right to reject Texas gun culture from existing in his state of PA.

I pointed out that he rejects federalism when it comes to imposing San Francisco homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.

Hypocrisy.

That is what I was pointing out.

What he refuses to acknowledge is that "Texas gun culture" is already the norm in PA, outside Philadelphia (and maybe Pittsburgh and Scranton).  PA is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry permits, and in the Alabama portion of the state (Carville once said, "Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, separated by Alabama."  He meant it as in insult, but the folks in the "T" basically said, "Damned straight!") open carry is no big deal.

[txradioguy]

The ninth or tenth don't supersede the stipulation in the Second that it is a Right of the people.  If anyone recalls the old diagram about the power structure in the US, "The People" are at the top. (Conveniently for the marxist slow putsch, that part is left out nowadays.)

IMHO people that want to cite the ninth or tenth where gun control are concerned aren't really interested in states rights...they just look at those two amendments as a convenient tool to impose top down federal control in an area that should be hands off per the Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not sure why he's slamming the great state of Texas...must be some Yankee jealously.

But regardless...it's very clear in the 2nd Amendment that everyone...EVERYONE shall have the right to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed upon.

And that includes any state attempting to use the 9th or 10th Amendment to usurp or contravene what is clearly written in the 2nd Amendment.


Not sure why it's so hard to understand or what's so complicated about it. 

Apparently he had you and me confused.  He called TX my state, but I haven't lived there since 1980.  Besides, I like the gun laws in AZ better, no offense.