Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not convenient at all and your argument is lame. I've always championed individual rights over the state. More power to the state and even more power to the individual.
Now you are just contradicting yourself, you can't have strong state rights and strong individual rights, it is one or the other.
I have no problem with this law. It's not important to me- I already have my concealed-carry permit... but if they want to make concealed carry universal that's fine with me.
But just to add a little context to this discussion- Governor Brownback has been a massive failure. He gave big tax cuts to his wealthy Koch buddies, creating huge deficits in the state budget. Now he and his Teabillies are cutting funding for state retirement funds, infrastructure, and education so that he can preserve the Kochs' tax cut.
This little stunt is designed to keep the Teabillies happy while their retirements are de-funded and their kids' education is cut... and I expect it'll work.
And, Medicaid was turned over to "for-profits" that are trying to cut services including those for developmentally disabled like my son. The "for-profits" are not paying the bills. He wants to get a hold of Medicare funding too so he can turn that over to big business. Everything is big business or nothing here.
Also, if he would do something about the illegal immigration problem bleeding the state, which is one reason why education dollars don't go as far here and the illegal drug traffic which they insist on ignoring, maybe it would look like he had a clue what was going on in the state and planned to do something about it.
Brownback is a joke. We are embarrassed to have him. If more people had a clue and actually looked beyond political party, he would never ever had been in a 2nd term. He is a loser and doing so much damage to our state.
The only thing I can count on is that if he is for something, I know I must be against it.
Now you are just contradicting yourself, you can't have strong state rights and strong individual rights, it is one or the other.
Suggesting strong state rights over the federal government and stronger individual rights is not a contradiction at all. Your rights outlined in the Constitution are not granted by the Federal government, they are granted by "We the people". No goverment entity whether it's federal state or local can infringe on those rights. They can grant you more, they can't take them away.
Suggesting strong state rights over the federal government and stronger individual rights is not a contradiction at all. Your rights outlined in the Constitution are not granted by the Federal government, they are granted by "We the people". No goverment entity whether it's federal state or local can infringe on those rights. They can grant you more, they can't take them away.
Strong state rights means the states can choose which rights are important and which are not, the people of those states makes those choices that may differ from state to state. So if you support state rights, then you have to support states making decisions such as regulating guns because another state can use their rights to reduce gun regulations.
That is your fault for living in the Bay Area in California. There are much more gun friendly states out there calling your name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Well right wingers do champion state rights and letting states make choices for themselves. You happen to be the minority where you live, which sucks for you, but not Obama's fault. You could always move to a state with much looser gun laws that would make you much happier. That is what I would do if I were you.
even the states have to follow the US constitution. just because the states have greater rights than the federal government, does not allow them to ignore the US constitution WHICH THEY HAD TO RATIFY in order to become a state in the first place.
even the states have to follow the US constitution. just because the states have greater rights than the federal government, does not allow them to ignore the US constitution WHICH THEY HAD TO RATIFY in order to become a state in the first place.
Oh I agree fully, though it seems whenever the Constitution is used in a way the right wingers don't like then they whine for stronger State Rights, and then when a state does something the right wingers don't like, they then turn around and whine about the Constitution and Individual Rights. It is just funny when this hypocrisy is on display.
Oh I agree fully, though it seems whenever the Constitution is used in a way the right wingers don't like then they whine for stronger State Rights, and then when a state does something the right wingers don't like, they then turn around and whine about the Constitution and Individual Rights. It is just funny when this hypocrisy is on display.
It would help if you understood states rights.
Your line of reasoning means a state could implement slavery.
A questionnaire from 1996 about state politics? Nice one, though the article goes on to show that like many, he supports some restrictions rather than a complete ban. So nobody is going to take your guns away, but feel free to stock up, it is good for the economy.
No True Scotsman logical fallacy. The evidence does not comport with what you wish to believe, so you discard the evidence.
The Heller example that I mentioned was from 2008. And no, the article does not "show that like many, he supports some restrictions rather than a complete ban." He just decided that a complete ban was not generally feasible politically. But where it was politically feasible, e.g. Washington DC, or the city of Chicago, he did support a complete ban.
Actually no, the whole thing is blown way out of proportion. Only a tiny minority of the left wants guns actually gone. On the left you can manage to get a majority that feel some guns laws are reasonable-IE someone under the care of a psychiatrist probably shouldn't have guns for example. The right turns that into the whole "they're coming for your guns!" freak out.
The left being anti-gun is not a major plank of their platform currently. Might change in the future, but I doubt it.
To be fair a small minority on the left ARE in fact all about banning guns. Which....is foolish in my opinion.
The only reason it's not a major plank in their platform is because they get their butts kicked every time they try it. Getting real 'gun shy' on the issue.
Your line of reasoning means a state could implement slavery.
False, I think the Federal Government and the Constitution trumps State Rights. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing that we see when it comes to State Rights. They are all for State Rights until they are not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
