• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws Be Federal Law [W18]

Should Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Be Federal Law?


  • Total voters
    20
In what way?
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.

As the right to arms is specifically enumerated, local districts have no more authority to regulate than they do the right to speech, religion, or due process. Likewise, States have no authority to regulate arms either. Only the federal government has the authority to pass and enforce any arms law. What laws are passed have to comply with Strict Scrutiny standard. This is not unique to firearms. This applies to your local knife laws as well. A city's "legal blade length" is as unconstitutional as another city's 'assault weapon' ban.

In short, only a bare minimum of any kind of Federal gun law is valid. All non-essential Federal gun laws are baseless. All state and city gun laws of every kind, without exception, are invalid.
 
Last edited:
I thought that almost all conservatives supported 'state's rights'.

Looks like there are some exceptions.
This really doesn't apply to the castle law, but in the sentiment that it is the constitution that gives us the right to have firearms, I think such laws could be accepted and not encroach on the 10th.

Being on conservative leaning libertarian, I do prefer States Rights, as the 10th amendment is meant for. However, the right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment. Now in article 4, we have the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I think in this case, it is proper to have a national law allowing people granted a conceal permit to use it in all other states for example. I also believe states like Texas with a no open carry law are in violation of the constitution.
 
This really doesn't apply to the castle law, but in the sentiment that it is the constitution that gives us the right to have firearms, I think such laws could be accepted and not encroach on the 10th.

Being on conservative leaning libertarian, I do prefer States Rights, as the 10th amendment is meant for. However, the right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment. Now in article 4, we have the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I think in this case, it is proper to have a national law allowing people granted a conceal permit to use it in all other states for example. I also believe states like Texas with a no open carry law are in violation of the constitution.




Whatever.

That's all that I have to say.

Have a nice day.
 
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.

As the right to arms is specifically enumerated, local districts have no more authority to regulate than they do the right to speech, religion, or due process. Likewise, States have no authority to regulate arms either. Only the federal government has the authority to pass and enforce any arms law. What laws are passed have to comply with Strict Scrutiny standard. This is not unique to firearms. This applies to your local knife laws as well. A city's "legal blade length" is as unconstitutional as another city's 'assault weapon' ban.

In short, only a bare minimum of any kind of Federal gun law is valid. All non-essential Federal gun laws are baseless. All state and city gun laws of every kind, without exception, are invalid.
Nice speech but what do you think guns laws have to do with my position about castle law and SYG?
 
Whatever.

That's all that I have to say.

Have a nice day.

States' rights do not include the right of the states to violate Constitutional rights, neither under the Constitution nor under the principles that states' rights are based upon.
 
Just answering your questions.

What position?
You must know my position already since you're preaching and telling me about my Constitutional beliefs.



PS
Oh, excuse me, you called it "answering [my] questions", which is still unproven. You haven't answered a thing, you've just been preaching. :roll:
 
Last edited:
You must know my position already since you're preaching and telling me about my Constitutional beliefs.
I'm telling you about your behavior. You're ignoring the 10th amendment.
 
I'm telling you about your behavior. You're ignoring the 10th amendment.
And your apparent ignorance of how exactly I'm doing that is getting old. I say apparent ignorance because you have as yet to show in what way I am ignoring it.
 
And your apparent ignorance of how exactly I'm doing that is getting old. I say apparent ignorance because you have as yet to show in what way I am ignoring it.
There's only one "way" to ignore something.
 
There's only one "way" to ignore something.
There are several ways, actually, but that's beside the point. You obviously misspoke and put yourself out on a limb that you are disparately trying to get off of. The branch is cracks a little more each time you post.
 
There are several ways, actually, but that's beside the point. You obviously misspoke and put yourself out on a limb that you are disparately trying to get off of. The branch is cracks a little more each time you post.

At least we agree that the ATF shouldn't be regulating guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom