Does the 2nd amendment bind the states?

[Principality of the Raix]

If the 1st-4th amendments don't exist then congress can ban any religion, political belief, or any form of speech they want.
They can also use the FBI to raid the homes of political opponents at will. You are arguing for a dictatorship

This is true, that is why the 2nd Ammendment is in place to enable a State to have a Militia. While able to retain their guns. At the same time, Both Lincoln and Washington saw it's the Citizens duty to fight (not specifically war) against corrupt Government. So in affect, that Constitution keeps us from becoming like North Korea or worse.

[Keshiland]

No liberal state will touch the 1st or 3rd or 4th so I ain't worried my family resides in liberal states. They would be fine. Conservative states IDK and IDC

But what happens when the Federal Government does it, or when the state does it to save money? And why do you think that the liberal states will not clamp on speech, house troops in your homes, or arrest you for any reason? What of the police forces storming your house just on a hunch?

Yes I have faith in my state and tbh I don't really care what would happen to the people in conservative states if the 1st 4 vanished cause you know they vote conservative.

[Principality of the Raix]

But what happens when the Federal Government does it, or when the state does it to save money? And why do you think that the liberal states will not clamp on speech, house troops in your homes, or arrest you for any reason? What of the police forces storming your house just on a hunch?

Yes I have faith in my state and tbh I don't really care what would happen to the people in conservative states if the 1st 4 vanished cause you know they are conservative.

You basically are arguing to stripe Freedom of speech a Human right, freedom to arm and defend oneself by the 2nd and etc. You are arguing for a Dictatorial Government that does not see you, YOU as nothing more than a GDP asset.

[Arctica-Aleutia]

But what happens when the Federal Government does it, or when the state does it to save money? And why do you think that the liberal states will not clamp on speech, house troops in your homes, or arrest you for any reason? What of the police forces storming your house just on a hunch?

Yes I have faith in my state and tbh I don't really care what would happen to the people in conservative states if the 1st 4 vanished cause you know they vote conservative.

My disagreement with that attitude aside, conservative-leaning states have liberals in them as well.

[Keshiland]

Yes I have faith in my state and tbh I don't really care what would happen to the people in conservative states if the 1st 4 vanished cause you know they are conservative.

You basically are arguing to stripe Freedom of speech a Human right, freedom to arm and defend oneself by the 2nd and etc. You are arguing for a Dictatorial Government that does not see you, YOU as nothing more than a GDP asset.

I am yes arguing that the 1st 4 are not binding to the states and yes I know that in most Republican states they would ban the freedom of religion and the freedom of essembally but I don't live there and I hate guns!

[Arctica-Aleutia]

You basically are arguing to stripe Freedom of speech a Human right, freedom to arm and defend oneself by the 2nd and etc. You are arguing for a Dictatorial Government that does not see you, YOU as nothing more than a GDP asset.

I am yes arguing that the 1st 4 are not binding to the states and yes I know that in most Republican states they would ban the freedom of religion and the freedom of essembally but I don't live there and I hate guns!

Republican states would probably do plenty of things you wouldn't like, but they would not ban freedom of religion. Anyone who had that as part of their campaign wouldn't get elected in any state, left or right.

And I don't like guns either. But if you ban guns then the only people who will have guns will be criminals who get them illegally. Then innocents won't be able to defend themselves if the police aren't around.

[Galloism]

That would only be true if they didn't qualify as privileges or immunities granted to US citizens.

Unfortunately for your argument, they do count for that, which makes your argument bunk.

They are not as much privilege, as they are the individual citizens free right. Least the first 4 are, cause striking the second also basically takes away your right to self-defense. While same thing with the first, allows any and all speech to be banned. That is honestly what dictatorships are, so they are not privilege. Just a Humans birth right.

The first amendment grants immunities for certain things. Namely, you can't be convicted for exercising free speech, for what religion, etc. you had an immunity from such at the federal level. That was a privilege of being a US citizen.

The 14th subjected the states to those same privileges and immunities rules as the fed was already subject to.

[Angleter]

Yes, yes it does.

[Principality of the Raix]

You basically are arguing to stripe Freedom of speech a Human right, freedom to arm and defend oneself by the 2nd and etc. You are arguing for a Dictatorial Government that does not see you, YOU as nothing more than a GDP asset.

I am yes arguing that the 1st 4 are not binding to the states and yes I know that in most Republican states they would ban the freedom of religion and the freedom of essembally but I don't live there and I hate guns!

Republican states have only banned Religion in Government and Law, nothing more. While you think Far left states, as there are a few out there like a few Far right wouldn't block your right to assemble? Assembly is what messes with Order, why do you think that is even a right? As it keeps the Citizens associating over whether or not the Government is right. While Liberal states like the political has tried would take away your freedom of speech. Meaning everything you are saying, wouldn't be allowed to be expressed or you would be imprisoned. Think on that....

[Dormill and Stiura]

If the 1st-4th amendments don't exist then congress can ban any religion, political belief, or any form of speech they want.
They can also use the FBI to raid the homes of political opponents at will. You are arguing for a dictatorship

I am arguing that the STATES do not have to follow the 1st 4 not that CONGRESS does not have to follow the 1st 4.

And the last time any of the Many States thought themselves superior to Congress and the Union as a whole, we had this happen.

How I'm following your argument is that since the 10th and 14th amendments "grants" the States the right to make any law that does not contradict either Congress or the Constitution, that they are free to overlook the first four amendments as they do not restrict the States, but Congress, to not infringe such rights. Except that since Congress is restricted to never infringe these rights, according to Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause), anything the Constitution says or Congress does takes precedence against anything a state or local government does in the event of conflict between the two, and as such, the States are restricted to respect the first four amendments, especially the Second, by proxy created by the Supremacy Clause.

The only way you're going to ever see a nationwide personal firearm ban is if you first cripple the NRA and all Gun Rights Lobbyists, then stack Congress in favor of a new amendment to repeal the 2nd, then stack the legislatures of 38 states in favor of its adoption.

[Gun Manufacturers]

You basically are arguing to stripe Freedom of speech a Human right, freedom to arm and defend oneself by the 2nd and etc. You are arguing for a Dictatorial Government that does not see you, YOU as nothing more than a GDP asset.

I am yes arguing that the 1st 4 are not binding to the states and yes I know that in most Republican states they would ban the freedom of religion and the freedom of essembally but I don't live there and I hate guns!

Too bad for you, that your argument is wrong.

[Thermodolia]

If the 1st-4th amendments don't exist then congress can ban any religion, political belief, or any form of speech they want.
They can also use the FBI to raid the homes of political opponents at will. You are arguing for a dictatorship

I am arguing that the STATES do not have to follow the 1st 4 not that CONGRESS does not have to follow the 1st 4.

The 1st amendment is for congress as it fucking says congress shall make no law!! The 3rd only applies to the federal government and congress because the states cannot raise troops!! Getting rid of the 1st - 4th amendments allows the federal government to whatever the duck they want.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Yes.

This amendment states that states are free to do anything they please unless they are prohibited by the constitution to do so. This means that the 1st though 8th amendments are not binding to the states.

The Supremacy Clause begs to differ. The 10th amendment isn't a free pass for the states to do whatever they want, the states are bound to everything in the constitution.

[Keshiland]

I am arguing that the STATES do not have to follow the 1st 4 not that CONGRESS does not have to follow the 1st 4.

The 1st amendment is for congress as it fucking says congress shall make no law!! The 3rd only applies to the federal government and congress because the states cannot raise troops!! Getting rid of the 1st - 4th amendments allows the federal government to whatever the duck they want.

Thank ducking you! I litterally had to explain to someone to a different chat room that the 1st amendment litterally can only apply to congress because it say Congress as word 1.

[Principality of the Raix]

The 1st amendment is for congress as it fucking says congress shall make no law!! The 3rd only applies to the federal government and congress because the states cannot raise troops!! Getting rid of the 1st - 4th amendments allows the federal government to whatever the duck they want.

Thank ducking you! I litterally had to explain to someone to a different chat room that the 1st amendment litterally can only apply to congress because it say Congress as word 1.

I wouldn't blame him for you mistranslating the Constitution, however it occurs often with Authoritarian parties. Seeing as they seek to instill Government and Federal power as law. Least til now, now some have like the Republicans did that you can secede from the Union. Which was made illegal, basically. So unless you want to leave America, we are all stuck together.

[Thermodolia]

The 1st amendment is for congress as it fucking says congress shall make no law!! The 3rd only applies to the federal government and congress because the states cannot raise troops!! Getting rid of the 1st - 4th amendments allows the federal government to whatever the duck they want.

Thank ducking you! I litterally had to explain to someone to a different chat room that the 1st amendment litterally can only apply to congress because it say Congress as word 1.

And so do the states because of the supremacy clause. Federal law and the constitution are supreme law of the land. The states are subordinate to it

[Galloism]

The 1st amendment is for congress as it fucking says congress shall make no law!! The 3rd only applies to the federal government and congress because the states cannot raise troops!! Getting rid of the 1st - 4th amendments allows the federal government to whatever the duck they want.

Thank ducking you! I litterally had to explain to someone to a different chat room that the 1st amendment litterally can only apply to congress because it say Congress as word 1.

Again, the 14th fundamentally changed the constitution.

The privilege and immunity for US citizens created by the first amendment against federal action also became applicable to the states.

[Sovaal]

First, let's start with the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment states that states are free to do anything they please unless they are prohibited by the constitution to do so. This means that the 1st though 8th amendments are not binding to the states.

Pretty sure that's not how it works. If it was, then I doubt that the Civil Rights movement would have succeeded. Or any other timesw state laws have been strucked down as unconstitutional.

Next, let's look at the 14th amendment. Section 1 since that deals the rights.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
This basically states that no matter what state you live in you are a citizen of the USA

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
This does not give you protection under the bill of rights. It literally just bans discrimination based on the state of origin.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This gives people the rights from the 5th-8th amendments and protects everyone equally under the law.

This clearly means that your 1st-4th amendments are not protected in the 14th amendment. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not either.

Again, I'm pretty sure that not how that works, y'know, with the US constitution being law of the land and all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
So, no, you're wrong.

[Galloism]

First, let's start with the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment states that states are free to do anything they please unless they are prohibited by the constitution to do so. This means that the 1st though 8th amendments are not binding to the states.

Pretty sure that's not how it works. If it was, then I doubt that the Civil Rights movement would have succeeded. Or any other timesw state laws have been strucked down as unconstitutional.

Next, let's look at the 14th amendment. Section 1 since that deals the rights.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
This basically states that no matter what state you live in you are a citizen of the USA

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
This does not give you protection under the bill of rights. It literally just bans discrimination based on the state of origin.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This gives people the rights from the 5th-8th amendments and protects everyone equally under the law.

This clearly means that your 1st-4th amendments are not protected in the 14th amendment. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not either.

Again, I'm pretty sure that not how that works, y'know, with the US constitution being law of the land and all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
So, no, you're wrong.

It's really not a supremacy clause issue. He is just demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

[Sovaal]

The 1st amendment is for congress as it fucking says congress shall make no law!! The 3rd only applies to the federal government and congress because the states cannot raise troops!! Getting rid of the 1st - 4th amendments allows the federal government to whatever the duck they want.

Thank ducking you! I litterally had to explain to someone to a different chat room that the 1st amendment litterally can only apply to congress because it say Congress as word 1.

Well you better tell the Supreme Court that you know the Constitution better than they do then.

[Neutraligon]

Pretty sure that's not how it works. If it was, then I doubt that the Civil Rights movement would have succeeded. Or any other timesw state laws have been strucked down as unconstitutional.


Again, I'm pretty sure that not how that works, y'know, with the US constitution being law of the land and all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
So, no, you're wrong.

It's really not a supremacy clause issue. He is just demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

Also don't latter amendments supersede earlier ones? That would be why repeal of prohibition works

[Kadur]

I'd prefer guns over Oceania.

[Thermodolia]

Pretty sure that's not how it works. If it was, then I doubt that the Civil Rights movement would have succeeded. Or any other timesw state laws have been strucked down as unconstitutional.


Again, I'm pretty sure that not how that works, y'know, with the US constitution being law of the land and all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
So, no, you're wrong.

It's really not a supremacy clause issue. He is just demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

Unfortunately he's misunderstanding both the supremacy clause and the 14th. As he believes that if the 1st amendment was struck down the states could still have freedom of speech even if congress said fuck no.

[Katganistan]

First, let's start with the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment states that states are free to do anything they please unless they are prohibited by the constitution to do so. This means that the 1st though 8th amendments are not binding to the states.

Next, let's look at the 14th amendment. Section 1 since that deals the rights.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
This basically states that no matter what state you live in you are a citizen of the USA

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
This does not give you protection under the bill of rights. It literally just bans discrimination based on the state of origin.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This gives people the rights from the 5th-8th amendments and protects everyone equally under the law.

This clearly means that your 1st-4th amendments are not protected in the 14th amendment. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not either.

That argument is idiotic. Your rights under the first-fourth amendment are constitutionally protected because they are part of the constitution.

It didn't bode well when you pretty much misinterpreted the 14th off the bat: you said no matter where you live, you're a citizen. You're a citizen no matter where you live in the US IF you are 1)born to American parents, 2) born in the US or its territories (such as on a military base, or in Puerto Rico) 3)are a naturalized citizen. Just coming here and establishing residency does not make you a citizen.

[Katganistan]

The key words you are missing are liberty, property, and due process. The first amendment is liberty, the second is both a liberty and property, the third is all three, and the fourth is due process.

Congrats I just destroyed your argument as the 1st-4th are protected by the 14th.

A state law can be no one is allowed to own a gun. Then if they violate that law and are found guilty that is due prosses.

A state law cannot countermand your constitutionally protected rights. Please, review your US History and Government notes.