The 10th doesn’t mention states having rights, only powers. People have rights in the Constitution.

10 “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.”

9 “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

14 in part “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th allows civil rights to be curtailed for crimes. It SPELLS it out.

People often pretend what is said is not what is REALLY meant.

David for better people

They will remain dead no matter what you say.

The one who killed them was breaking several laws at the time. Prior restraint of civil rights because of unlawful actions of a criminal is generally considered another crime. Had he been forced to use some other tool to kill them, it would not have mattered which tool he was NOT allowed to lawfully use.

It is somewhat unreasonable knowing full well that there are monsters around us and assuming that the solution is to restrict the right to self defense from those monsters. It’s like building a wall with multiple openings and expecting it to stop anything. You can always go over, under, around or through.

David for better people

All the comments are about gun rights. Yet, not a single mention of the lives lost in Parkland.

And over in another story, nothing but pro-life comments.

So, all babies should be born, but once born, gun rights become more important than the lives of all who were once the babies of those who chose not to abort.

Whatever floats yer narrative, homeboy.

It does not matter if my rights are not being violated or yours, the law that the legislature passed was and is unconstitutional. Period, end of sentence.

That is pure 100% revisionist-history. The purpose of the 10th Amendment is to protect other rights not mentioned in the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment reads:

“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.”

The 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government and the states from infringing the right to keep and bear arms — this clause:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Power-hungry tyrants, and their (equally power-hungry) apologists, are always seeking ways to usurp power from the people. But, first, they must disarm the people, which requires them to undermine the plain words of the constitution and rewrite history, as you are attempting to do.

You act as if these laws and the application thereof are written for me specifically. My rights are not being infringed upon, neither are yours. This is about the law, not about how you feel.

If there should be no restrictions on 2A, maybe convicted felons should have the right to bear arms. How about those adjudicated mentally ill? People would rather live in a world where they can legally shoot those people if they pose a threat, instead of handling the problem before it becomes a threat. Perhaps we should just get rid of background checks too?

Again, the Constitution does not specifically outline how the 2nd amendment is to be applied. That falls under the 10th Amendment guaranteeing state’s rights.