Welcome back to the Conspiracy. In this audio production, Gardner Goldsmith offers a long-lasting lesson on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the so-called “incorporation doctrine.” He takes the leap point of the recent lawsuit challenging the city of Chicago’s ban on firearms, and extends his analysis to the Bill of Rights and even to scholars who miss some major points when it comes to understanding the wording and dynamic working of the Constitution of the U.S. (which, by the way, Gard believes does not even go far enough in defending his freedom).
It’s a production that we hope will have a lot of value and that you’ll recommend to your friends.
Check it out, as Strongbad would say!
Be Seeing You!
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3594 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Shawn-Earnest
Mar 04, 2010
Everyone should be allowed to carry fire arms concealed or not concealed is the question. This is just a long drawn out debate regards 2nd admendmant rights to the United States Constitution. I feel everyone should own guns unless a violent act that resolved to a felony.
Not much more to type in here, with exception of the national on going police state situation with each 911 type event is going to leave us all with less rights -so it appears, in the end. Law Enforcement loves it till they are out of a job and the military takes their place. Oh’ yeah, LEO’s laugh at that as they think this idea is real funny, cause it will never happen to them. -Nice attitude, right?
Patrick Krey
Mar 25, 2010
I like the whole “free society” vibe around here but you lost me on this podcast when you made the historically inaccurate statement that the 2nd amendment restrains all governments – both state and federal and always has. I think we both have the same veiwpoint when it comes to the right to self-defense but I dislike sweeping statements like that about the Constitution which are contrary to the actual events at the time. It’s like when liberals claim that the general welfare or interstate commerce clause is an open-ended grant of power to Congress for virtually anything. We don’t need to rewrite history to promote our beliefs.
And what exactly are you proposing? The ratifiers entrusted the Feds with restraining the states from enacting gun laws? So, in your view, would the feds be able to send agents into NYS to prevent them from enforcing their gun laws? And if the 2nd amendment always meant this, why was it never enforced that way? How come all of the countless gun laws on the books at the time of ratification weren’t immediately challenged? Federalism means leaving issues up to the states, even if the states legislate on them in unlibertarian ways.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/15/the-2nd-amendment-and-the-states/