Ted Nugent on Gun Control

Yes, "arms" means guns. There is little doubt to any rational person that the founders intended for the citizens to have the ability to kill government soldiers if the government got out of hand.

Knowing what they had to go through in order to separate from the king, is anyone here actually trying to argue that Madison wanted to make it more difficult for the citizens to overthrow another tyrant should they ever gain control of the government?


I guess the founders failed miserable in that respect because if you try to overthrow the government you're royally f'ed. Hell, even opposing it is a no-no.

It's not so simple. In interpreting the scope of the various rights conferred by the Bill of Rights (not in determining whether they even apply), the more conservative justices tend to defer to the states' "reasonable" restrictions on individual liberties. For example, conservative justices tend to grant the states broad rights to impose restrictions on free speech (e.g., porn). They just subscribe to a different philosophy when passing judgment on 2nd Amendment issues.

I agree. The "conservative" justices like states rights as long as they fit their agenda. They don't like states rights if the people of Oregon decide they want to allow doctor assisted suicide or medical marijuana.

So in reality, the "states rights" argument -- as I said earlier -- no longer holds any water. Both the liberal and conservative wings of the court will stay true to it only if stays within the confines of their personal political philosophy.

When you think of it abortion and gay marriage are after all morally reprehensible because of religious dogma.
I am assuming you are referring to me when you say "when you think of it". I never mentioned what my personal views are on either of these issues, you are making an assumption based on my conservative political stances.

I don't care to share my personal view on either of these issues, but my personal views don't matter. I don't believe the gov't should be involved in pushing a particular set of values or morals on anyone. If there are values/moral issues they should be determined at the state level and voted on by the people.

I am assuming you are referring to me when you say "when you think of it". I never mentioned what my personal views are on either of these issues, you are making an assumption based on my conservative political stances.

I don't care to share my personal view on either of these issues, but my personal views don't matter. I don't believe the gov't should be involved in pushing a particular set of values or morals on anyone. If there are values/moral issues they should be determined at the state level and voted on by the people.

"When you think of it" doesn't imply I am alluding to you personally. I am merely appealing to rational minds. The point is many Bible thumping conservatives feel that states should be allowed to ban abortion and gay marriage because the Bile says it's a sin/sinful. Let's not sugar coat the subject, everyone knows what's up.

As for values/morals being determined at the state level being acceptable then how far can states go? What are the limits? Can states mandate via vote that no one under 21 may have sex and you break the law you get 1 year in the pen? What about the prospect of conflicting state laws (you're married in CA but you have no rights in GA...if you want to commit the crime of abortion hit the interstate, don't do it in our neck of the woods)? Also, if you can say values/morals can be determined at the state level then couldn't they be determined at the county level? City level? What's the point of having a federal system?

Not allowing gun ownership is a direct violation of the 2nd Ammendment. There is no constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage. The "right" to an abortion was based on the Roe v. Wade ruling, not by any legislation.

I'm all for states rights concerning abortion and gay marriage. If the people of a state want abortion and gay marriage, and it is voted into law, so be it. If other states don't want abortion and don't want gay marriage, so be it. The Supreme Court should only get involved in disputes between states, it should not be "legislating morality" one way or the other.

Everything thing the high court deals with is a constitutional matter. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Roe v. Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) decision stated that laws against abortion were in violation of the 14th amendment and infringed upon a person's privacy under the due process clause.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

"When you think of it" doesn't imply I am alluding to you personally. I am merely appealing to rational minds. The point is many Bible thumping conservatives feel that states should be allowed to ban abortion and gay marriage because the Bile says it's a sin/sinful. Let's not sugar coat the subject, everyone knows what's up.
I agree with your point, but it does cut both ways. Many hippie, pot-smoking liberals want legalized drugs and drive-thru abortion clinics. I'm obviously being absurd, but my main point is that the morals of CA aren't the same as KS and IMO the federal government shouldn't be dictating liberal or conservative morality to the entire country.

As for values/morals being determined at the state level being acceptable then how far can states go? What are the limits? Can states mandate via vote that no one under 21 may have sex and you break the law you get 1 year in the pen? What about the prospect of conflicting state laws (you're married in CA but you have no rights in GA...if you want to commit the crime of abortion hit the interstate, don't do it in our neck of the woods)? Also, if you can say values/morals can be determined at the state level then couldn't they be determined at the county level? City level? What's the point of having a federal system?
There are obviously limits on what laws a state could pass, but I would trust the people of a particular state to decide what's best for them rather than 535 congress-people or 9 judges in DC. There are plenty of lawyers and advocacy groups on both sides to keep each other in check and the laws pretty reasonable. Yes, there would be conflicts between states' laws and that's where the Supreme Court would make determinations based on their constitutionality. You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.

Everything thing the high court deals with is a constitutional matter. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Roe v. Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) decision stated that laws against abortion were in violation of the 14th amendment and infringed upon a person's privacy under the due process clause.
Here's some light reading from what I'm sure is one of your favorite publications and favorite authors....LOL

Mark R. Levin on Abortion & Courts National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp)

Even though we are polar opposites in a politcal sense I do enjoy the debate :food-smil

You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.

I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.

I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.
I agree 100% with your first point, any government entity (fed, state, local) should have very limited control in regulating morals/values issues.

My point about the states legislatures being more effective than US congressmen is that they are more in direct touch with their consitituents on a day-to-day basis. At the state level it is generally easier to reach agreement on issues because the scope is much smaller and although communities within a state are often very diverse, it is on a much smaller scale than at the federal level.

I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.

As a libertarian, I don't like government at any level telling me how I should live my life.

The theory is that state and local legislators know better than a politician in Washington how to represent their constituents. Take the federal speed limits for instance. Awhile back, those laws were rescinded in favor of local and state jurisdiction. How would a Washington hack in the House of Representatives know what the best speed limit is for a rural highway in Junction City, Wyoming if that congressman represents the people of Detroit?