Replies

"See you around kiddo. -- Please, drop the bit about being libertarian"

We disagree about very little but the means to the ends of a libertarian government. You seem to prefer the extraconstitutional extension of government power to enforce those rights it sees fit to federalize, and dislike the fact that I preferred and still prefer the federal government gain the consent of the governed before extending its power over them, whether its extension is nominally for their benefit or no.

You see, just because I think that government in California SHOULDN'T be banning assault weapons, that Texas SHOULDN'T be banning gay marriage, and many other states SHOULDN'T be doing lots of things doesn't mean that the Constitution was ever acceptably extended to mean that the federal government to intervene, which is all we're discussing. Just because I want the right to bear arms to federally extend to the states doesn't mean that I think Constitutional extension was legitimate initially. I do think if any such faux-federalism applies, the entirety of the Bill of Rights all should. But I think because government power once permitted tends to remain it is dangerous, and a Leviathan national government is far more dangerous than that of the states.

All I was doing here is trying to discuss this minor doctrinal difference and perhaps exchange thoughts on the matter, and it is extremely disappointing to read your comments, which are at best dismissived and at worst insulting. I thought you might enjoy a fair discussion of political philosophy instead of an irrational exchange of insults for once. I have been disabused of that notion. Sorry to bother you. Go back to your regular abuse of those against liberty.