Taurus850CIA wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Sounds like you believe states can do as they please, even trample 2A rights. That being the case, nothing can convince you otherwise.
I don't understand how you can assume this given what I've written.
ETA:
Our system of gov't was set up so that the central gov't is relatively weak. States were to have more power than the Fed. The exception, of course, is in the BOR. On that, neither local nor central gov't is supposed to regulate. HR 197 would be in direct opposition to the founding principles, on it's PRINCIPLE. Nevermind that the whole can of worms is unconstitutional.
This is my reasoning: the feds in this instance are furthering a right guaranteed by the Constitution (2A), albeit in a fairly small way. You stated that "state's rights" should trump this action. Well, since the constitution is a FEDERAL DOCUMENT, as states also have constitutions, you seem to be advocating that it does not matter what the US Constitution says; a state's autonomy dictates that they can do as they please.
If you argue that position, and since the final arbitration of the "constitutionality" will
probably take place at the federal level, a notion you also find untenable, you are apparently convinced that the Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper... unenforceable against a state unless a state decides that it should be.
If that is the case, then I would reiterate that you will not be convinced by anything said here. Under your interpretation of of the history and issues regarding power among governmental units, the state is considered the only arbiter of what transpires within its boundaries.
Is there anything here about your beliefs which I've misconstrued?
P.S. Your contention that the Feds were to be "weaker" than the states is not entirely accurate, but I'll leave that to another day...