This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] totes_magotes 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
All gun control is infringement. Period.
[–] slwsnowman40 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Nonsense, the one law that should be followed with regards to weapons is the 2nd Amendment. If the feds went back to only enforcing that and suing states like Commiefornia, Jew York, etc and cities like Jew York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and winning those cases, a lot of crap changes and changes quickly.
Since the states barely look and act like they did when they were a territory and voted to join and sign the US Constitution, perhaps we should have a do over and vote again? That could really shake things up...
[–] JewnnyAppleSeed ago (edited ago)
The States are (almost) as restricted by the Bill of Rights as the Federal Government. As of 2010 SCOTUS has ruled that all but the Third Amendment apply to the states in part (that is, excluding the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment) or in whole. The Second Circuit has ruled that the Third also applies in full (and, interestingly, that national guardsmen are soldiers, not militia.)
The fact is that the States have no more Constitutional authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms than the Federal Government, and the federal government has none ("shall not be".) They would have to first amend or repeal the 14th to have the authority and anyone willing to do so would surely target the Second instead, lest Alabama round up all the niggers and ship them to Africa.
"Constitutional authority" is actually the wrong way of looking at it where states are concerned, come to think of it. The only body that derives its authority from the Constitution is the Federal Government. The States (as well as local governments) are expressly prohibited from infringing on any of the rights (excluding the four mentioned above, at the moment) enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
[–] TheKobold 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Most of the most heinous gun control laws are stateside. How about we just follow the one law that matters, the one that
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
[–] 12351175? ago
Instead of arguing against this particular gun control, he basically argues that we should just be fine when every state passes this exact same bill (which they would after Congress forced them, just look at how 21 became the drinking age in every state).
This is a bullshit argument since guns are explicitly listed in the Constitution, which is also incorporated against the states meaning they can't infringe either. I would rather fight this at the national level than at the level of every city and township.
[–] NonyaBidness 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
It always has been. The feds job is to insure that the states don't violate the inalienable rights of the individual, and vice versa. The state's each have their own Constitution, some of which respect right that the feds fail to.
There were a few states a few years ago that voted to respect the individuals rights to suppressors, and any kind of unlicensed carry.
Decentralize all the things!
Edit: And vice versa
[–] 12351150? ago
The 2nd Amendment is incorporated into all States by the 14th Amendment and later Court rulings (especially those in 2008 and 2010). That means no state can infringe on gun rights more than the federal government is allowed to.
[–] NonyaBidness ago
States are sovereign, and have their own Constitutions. They must adhere to the national Constitution, but the state government must also adhere to its own. You can find many examples of states guaranteeing rights that the feds have violated. There isn't any lawful foot for the feds to stand on to insist that states violate rights they recognize. They usually just deny funds. If a state decided to violate rights guaranteed by the national Constitution, than it would be the role meant for the feds to step in.
[–] undertheshills ago
Its not federal you can open carry ARs in some states and can't have a flint lock in some cities.
[–] Diggernicks 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Are you unaware how federal laws function or are you genuinely mentally challenged?