serious question here.

[rhino]

Let's not forget that the first post in response was a relative serious, but wholly legitimate, answer to the question.

So noted. Let's also not forget that sharks usually take a test bite before they decide they want to eat it right away, play with it, or swim away.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Let's not forget that the first post in response was a relative serious, but wholly legitimate, answer to the question.

Objection, improper bolstering/vouching.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So noted. Let's also not forget that sharks usually take a test bite before they decide they want to eat it right away, play with it, or swim away.

Wait, there's a setting that is not full frontal attack?

 

[rhino]

Wait, there's a setting that is not full frontal attack?

Ah-HAH! You're the one inside whose belly they find license plates, hub caps, Tiffany lamps, and anvils. You never learned to test bite first.

 

[T.Lex]

So noted. Let's also not forget that sharks usually take a test bite before they decide they want to eat it right away, play with it, or swim away.

Saw that one a few years ago.

Dude hip deep in water, with little sharks swimming around. He'd just said something nonsensical, like "People just need to understand that sharks are not inherently evil and only seek to cause harm to humans." when one of the little buggers took a chunk out of his calf.

Yaaaah.... I'll stick with the "sharks will totally bite you if they have a chance" policy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ah-HAH! You're the one inside whose belly they find license plates, hub caps, Tiffany lamps, and anvils. You never learned to test bite first.

The Talalog language is intriguing to me. I have no concept of this "test bite" you reference.

 

[rhino]

Saw that one a few years ago.

Dude hip deep in water, with little sharks swimming around. He'd just said something nonsensical, like "People just need to understand that sharks are not inherently evil and only seek to cause harm to humans." when one of the little buggers took a chunk out of his calf.

Yaaaah.... I'll stick with the "sharks will totally bite you if they have a chance" policy.

Well, if you want to get all practical, then agreed.

The Talalog language is intriguing to me. I have no concept of this "test bite" you reference.

Kirk Freeman ay isang ulok na gansa!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Saw that one a few years ago.

Dude hip deep in water, with little sharks swimming around. He'd just said something nonsensical, like "People just need to understand that sharks are not inherently evil and only seek to cause harm to humans." when one of the little buggers took a chunk out of his calf.

Yaaaah.... I'll stick with the "sharks will totally bite you if they have a chance" policy.

Personally, I have a theory that that's why God made sea water so unpalatable to us humans -- to give us a hint it's not for us and we should avoid getting in it as best we can.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

This wasn't serious at all.

 

[Leadeye]

Eat it before it eats you.

 

[mergatroid]

This thread is an excellent example of how to take a serious question and obscure it to the point readers will tune to ebay or gunbroker or anything, than attempt to discuss the topic. I'm going to the gun cleaning thread. Old Tee Shirts vs store bought "patches". Which is best!

 

[mergatroid]

This thread is an excellent example of how to take a serious question and obscure it to the point readers will tune to ebay or gunbroker or anything, than attempt to discuss the topic. I'm going to the gun cleaning thread. Old Tee Shirts vs store bought "patches". Which is best!

Just realized I did not help by adding my silly remark. Please continue the silly remarks.

 

[Dead Duck]

serious question here.

You should probably ask a real lawyer before listening to any replys here on INGO.
Since we're being all serious and all.

 

[HoughMade]

Amidst a little light-heartedness, answers were given that clearly explain why the U.S. Constitution applies to the states. There is even citation to authority and directions to additional reading for anyone who is interested.

Honestly, I don’t know what the panty bunching is about.

 

[Dead Duck]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Amidst a little light-heartedness, answers were given that clearly explain why the U.S. Constitution applies to the states. There is even citation to authority and directions to additional reading for anyone who is interested.

Honestly, I don’t know what the panty bunching is about.

Welcome to INGO, noob.

 

[jamil]

I want the answer to be the right answer.

I see all these posts all over the interwebz stating the constitution is to limit federal power... then the "shall not be infringed" posts and just wondered if the shall not be infringed also applied to the states.

It depends if it's something that benefits me. If the state wants to infringe on a freedom that the federal law allows, then let's shall not infringe the hell out of that particular. If it's a freedom the state wants to give me that the fed wants to take, then State's rights!

And that is the answer to the right answer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This thread is an excellent example of how to take a serious question and obscure it to the point readers will tune to ebay or gunbroker or anything, than attempt to discuss the topic. I'm going to the gun cleaning thread. Old Tee Shirts vs store bought "patches". Which is best!

Dude, we answered the question with citations to the Constitution and book recommendations. How serious do you really want me to be?

If you think I am just going to stand here and pass up an opportunity for rhino mocking, then you are not being serious.

 

[Fargo]

I want the answer to be the right answer.

I see all these posts all over the interwebz stating the constitution is to limit federal power... then the "shall not be infringed" posts and just wondered if the shall not be infringed also applied to the states.

Under the original terms of the BoR, they did not apply to the states via the federal constitution. Each state constitution had some sort of BoR-like provisions limiting state authority.

Post-14th amendment, it becomes a garbled mess. The due process clause of the 14th amendment supposedly incorporates almost all of the bill of rights, despite the fifth amendment containing the exact same due process language. Kirk disagrees, but I am seriously skeptical that that was what the words meant at the time they were ratified.

Incorporation was originally rejected by the SCOTUS but then brought back piecemeal in response to the "substantive due process" catastrophes that occurred throughout the 20th century. The 2nd was just recently incorporated, and certain truly proceedural rights (like grand jury) remain unincorporated.

Do not expect any sort of logic or consistency in the legal history of incorporation of the BoR in this country. It was done piecemeal over more than 100 years and largely by the dictates of convenience and politics.

I maintain that if the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, it should say something like "the first eight amendments to the constitution now apply to the states". That however, is ancient history though, unless we are talking about grand jury, petit jury, excessive fines, and a number of other truly procedural rights which really strangely do not apply to the states.

 

[Fargo]

Yes. In reality, probably for as long as there has been a 2d Amendment. Explicitly ever since McDonald v. City of Chicago from 2010. Other amendments were incorporated explicitly (made applicable to the states through the 14th amendment) much earlier, like right after that amendment was ratified.



Let's not forget that the first post in response was a relatively serious, but wholly legitimate, answer to the question.

What are you referring to as "like right after"? Burlington was 1897 and Gitlow wasn't until 1925.