Why do I want states to have the power to prohibit guns? Because they DO! Federalism allows states to make decisions we don't agree with. Not everything is a right. It is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that leads the Supreme Court to make decisions like Brown and Roe and Griswold and the VMI case--because the notion that everything is a right.
If Californians don't like it, they can vote at the ballot box or they can vote with their feet. I own a lot of guns, and you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands--but at the same time, I wouldn't live in California if it was the last place on Earth.
The beauty of Our Federalism is that the federal government can't just stomp all over the states when it feels like. Individual states are free to make laws that not everyone agrees with. If Alabama wants to ban dildoes (it does), great. Fine. There's no "right" to buy one. If Virginia wants to ban unmarried co-habitation (it did until this year), fine. If Vermont wants to allow same-sex marriages, also fine. We've got 50 great states (well, OK, 35 great states and 15 ok ones) and I'm sure that you can find one that you like.
Once you start allowing the federal government to stomp all over the states, there is no principled place to draw the line. You seemed to imply earlier that you thought Brown was wrongly decided--why? If you think the federal government can command the states, why was Brown wrong?
--- nothing in Article VI contradicts what I've said. If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, and up until 1868, nothing indicated that it did, a state could freely enact laws that infringed on the ownership of firearms without being in conflict with the US Constitution. No problem.
Why do you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?
Why is this "no problem"? - It's sure a problem to Californians.
Why do I want states to have the power to prohibit guns? Because they DO! Federalism allows states to make decisions we don't agree with. Not everything is a right.
You're getting so emotional that you claim that "not everything", [like owning guns] "is a right". I suggest you rethink that one.
It is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that leads the Supreme Court to make decisions like Brown and Roe and Griswold and the VMI case--because the notion that everything is a right.
States can prohibit guns, drugs & call early term abortion murder because they are not rights. I see.
If Californians don't like it, they can vote at the ballot box or they can vote with their feet. I own a lot of guns, and you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands
Unless your State 'repeals' your right to bear arms; whereupon you will bow to the majority will and leave? Where will you go if all States prohibit guns?
--but at the same time, I wouldn't live in California if it was the last place on Earth.
Emotional plea. Tell someone who cares.
The beauty of Our Federalism is that the federal government can't just stomp all over the states when it feels like.
You are preaching to the choir, as my post #107 to you on 'Brown' made clear.
Individual states are free to make laws that not everyone agrees with. If Alabama wants to ban dildoes (it does), great. Fine. There's no "right" to buy one. If Virginia wants to ban unmarried co-habitation (it did until this year), fine. If Vermont wants to allow same-sex marriages, also fine.
Yep, 'reasonable regulations' can be written, as long as they do not infringe on our individual Constitutional rights. Try to understand the Constitutional principle.
We've got 50 great states (well, OK, 35 great states and 15 ok ones) and I'm sure that you can find one that you like. Once you start allowing the federal government to stomp all over the states, there is no principled place to draw the line.
Exactly. Fed or State, the line on guns must be drawn. -- I came to CA 45 years ago, well before gun bans. Now you say I should move because my peers have become prohibitionists? Bet me.
You seemed to imply earlier that you thought Brown was wrongly decided--why? If you think the federal government can command the states, why was Brown wrong?
Because both fed & state governments are required to support the Constitution.
Neither did so in 'Brown', as I wrote in #107.
-- Really, you do need to learn to understand what you read, particularly in regard to our Constitution.