Oregon sheriff says proposed gun background-check law won't be enforced

[Worriedman]

The 2nd Amendment, as originally drafted, was only a matter between the federal government and the states. 

As such each State had the ability to decide what level of Liberty is allowed its Citizens, and gives the individual the power to "vote with their feet".  Maybe Oregon's rule of law would better suit your taste over this backwater redneck one.

[LagerHead]

The 2nd Amendment, as originally drafted, was only a matter between the federal government and the states.

Everything in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the individual from the federal government, including the 2nd Amendment. Again, it says "the people." "[T]he people" means the people. It doesn't mean the states. It doesn't mean the militia. It doesn't mean the federal government. Seriously, which part of the "the people" is giving you trouble? Because I'm not seeing where the confusion lies.

[Worriedman]

The 2nd Amendment, as originally drafted, was only a matter between the federal government and the states. 

As such, it follows the order of the 10th Amendment, which 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."
 

As the 2nd Amendment does not give the federal government "United States" the ability to regulate firearms in truth, and does in fact limit it by saying the federal government may not infringe on the ability of the People to keep and bear arms, it is in fact the sole prerogative of each of the various States to order the ability of their Citizens to keep, bear and wear them or not.

Our State says in Article 1 § 1. Powers of people

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper,

and Article 1 § 2. Doctrine of non-resistance

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Pretty clear that whatever we as Tennesseans desire shall be the deal, not what some government hack in lust for Power wants, if we the People are strident enough in our call out to our elected employees and serious enough about our calling.

Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp said it best I think when she described her view: "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."