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.
That's not what you're arguing in the post I quoted.
When you say if people don't like the gun laws in California they can move, you are arguing from a states rights position.
Then you say that gun laws should be done at the Federal level, which contradicts the states rights position.
Well then you are cherry picking my posts to comment on. Currently gun laws are done at the state level, so if you don't like it, move. I however think it should be done at the federal level so that it is the same in each state.
So no, that isn't a contradiction, that is me explaining how it currently is compared to how I think it should be. Hope that cleared up any confusion for you.
yes and laws can be changed or amended. When the constitution was drafted the issue of slavery did come up. In order to achieve unity among states blacks were declared to be 3/5 humans. That allowed for the "inalienable rights" not to be a contradiction.
They did that so the southern states couldn't overpower them with more representatives since they had more people. By counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, they actually set it up to eventually end slavery.
Times were different, but the idea of protecting people's freedom from tyranny hasn't changed. They made freedom the first amendment, and the second amendment was the ability to protect those freedoms. I am okay with some restrictions which we already have, but I am not okay with gun bans or stupid laws that do nothing to stop crime. The guns aren't going to disappear just because of laws. All these laws do is cause more people to buy these guns before the law takes effect, putting even more guns on the streets. It's stupid.
Well then you are cherry picking my posts to comment on. Currently gun laws are done at the state level, so if you don't like it, move. I however think it should be done at the federal level so that it is the same in each state.
So no, that isn't a contradiction, that is me explaining how it currently is compared to how I think it should be. Hope that cleared up any confusion for you.
And your explanation about state vs federal oversight is a clear violation of the amendment restricting the fed government.
And your explanation about state vs federal oversight is a clear violation of the amendment restricting the fed government.
The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments that apply to all states. The states have the right to make their own laws, but they cannot do anything to restrict the rights granted in the Bill of Rights.
I like mine better. If abortion falls under the 1st amendment and states cannot be allowed to restrict access (they try but it's always challenged in court), then the states cannot restrict the 2nd amendment that is very clear in its language. Yet I heard our most likely future president say that gun control laws should be left up to the states. I have never heard her say that about abortion rights (or as she likes to say, women's health access).
Well then you are cherry picking my posts to comment on. Currently gun laws are done at the state level, so if you don't like it, move. I however think it should be done at the federal level so that it is the same in each state.
So no, that isn't a contradiction, that is me explaining how it currently is compared to how I think it should be. Hope that cleared up any confusion for you.
So why should someone move rather than working to change the laws?
Why should anyone roll over and let the government, state or federal take away their rights?
So why should someone move rather than working to change the laws?
Why should anyone roll over and let the government, state or federal take away their rights?
They can do that too, but I am willing to bet the OP has no interest in actually trying to change laws to support more access to all weapons in California since he is obviously a minority there on this topic. It would be much easier for him to move to a very gun friendly state and then just visit California rather than actually live there.
That still doesn't change my opinion that gun laws should be done at the federal level, not the state level.
Watch the movie The Matrix......the Dogloafocrats are the Machine-Overlords, THAT is what they want.
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.
