[Ken H]

In 1787, did the states protect the fundamental rights of citizens of other states that it recognized for its own citizens? If they did, I assume it was under their state constitution.

But in your view of privileges and immunities, they were not required to do so. Does it not seem absurd that the Constitution would require a state to entitle the citizens of other states to its privileges and immunities, but not its fundamental rights?

[tpaine]

The basic argument being made is that society can decide which rights will be protected --- If a majority of people decide that we should prohibit arms, then it can be done. -- In this bizarre 'constitutional' view, there is nothing to stop a majority from banning any thing or any act.

[robertpaulsen]

"Does it not seem absurd that the Constitution would require a state to entitle the citizens of other states to its privileges and immunities, but not its fundamental rights?"

Isn't that an application of federalism? Each state unique in the rights it protects and the laws it enforces?

Or does that make you uncomfortable?

Would you like just one set of rights and one set of rules for all 50 states? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's do that, then we'll have five justices interpret those rights for all of us, AND they'll also rule on the constitutionality of the laws that we all must obey!

And if we don't like it we can always move to another .... no, can't do that.