On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce
federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===

Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.

On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce
federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===



Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.


Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous.
I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized
by all states should be the ruling factor.

I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have
grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary.
Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with
a gun would ever become a problem.

On 10/4/15 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not
required to enforce
federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we
should change.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===



Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.


Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous.
I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized
by all states should be the ruling factor.

I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have
grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary.
Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with
a gun would ever become a problem.






"States rights" is little more than a loaded term that gives cover to
those who oppose gay marriage, racial desegregation, and the ability of
minorities and students to vote.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:26:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

"States rights" is little more than a loaded term that gives cover to
those who oppose gay marriage, racial desegregation, and the ability of
minorities and students to vote.

I never heard that they had repealed the 9th and 10th amendment.
I agree the 14th gave the government the ability to legislate RIGHTS
that might tend to trump a state law but going to federal prison for
possessing something beyond the reach of constitutional powers is not
the kind of right they intended to protect.

FYI when you do talk to lawyers about this they cite the 14th
amendment as the reason why the feds can have drug, gun laws, the 55
MPH speed limit and lots of other things they have no business in.
Traditionally if they could not cite the commerce clause, (crossing
state lines) the feds could not act unless it was treason or
counterfeiting, the only crimes defined in the constitution.

Other federal crimes cited federal interest, killing a federal
employee, robbing a federally insured bank etc.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:20:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===



Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.


Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous.
I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized
by all states should be the ruling factor.

I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have
grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary.
Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with
a gun would ever become a problem.

===

My point is that there are huge differences between states with regard
to culture and legal issues. I think it's impossible to come with a
"one size fits all" framework. The original role of the Federal
government was to facilitate issues between states (llike interstate
commerce), and national defense. We as citizens have allowed this
creeping federalism to take place. It needs to be slowed down before
we all become infected with group think culture.

On 10/4/2015 5:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:20:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===



Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.


Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous.
I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized
by all states should be the ruling factor.

I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have
grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary.
Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with
a gun would ever become a problem.

===

My point is that there are huge differences between states with regard
to culture and legal issues. I think it's impossible to come with a
"one size fits all" framework. The original role of the Federal
government was to facilitate issues between states (llike interstate
commerce), and national defense. We as citizens have allowed this
creeping federalism to take place. It needs to be slowed down before
we all become infected with group think culture.


It's not any big surprise that the role of the federal government has
grown by necessity since the original concept of 13 basically
independent states under the general umbrella of a weak federal alliance
was established in 1781 and then became the US Constitution in 1789
replacing the original Articles of Confederation. In those days an
average citizen born in Pennsylvania probably never left the state in
his/her lifetime and never came across someone from Delaware,
Massachusetts or Georgia.

Obviously, things have changed since then and it's unrealistic to think
the kind of state autonomy envisioned in those days can still work
effectively today. The fundamental concept remains but the role of the
federal government has had to grow. I don't think it's due to a
particular political persuasion. It's more due to necessity.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:20:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===



Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.


Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous.
I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized
by all states should be the ruling factor.

I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have
grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary.
Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with
a gun would ever become a problem.

===

My point is that there are huge differences between states with regard
to culture and legal issues. I think it's impossible to come with a
"one size fits all" framework. The original role of the Federal
government was to facilitate issues between states (llike interstate
commerce), and national defense. We as citizens have allowed this
creeping federalism to take place. It needs to be slowed down before
we all become infected with group think culture.


It's not any big surprise that the role of the federal government has
grown by necessity since the original concept of 13 basically
independent states under the general umbrella of a weak federal alliance
was established in 1781 and then became the US Constitution in 1789
replacing the original Articles of Confederation. In those days an
average citizen born in Pennsylvania probably never left the state in
his/her lifetime and never came across someone from Delaware,
Massachusetts or Georgia.

Obviously, things have changed since then and it's unrealistic to think
the kind of state autonomy envisioned in those days can still work
effectively today. The fundamental concept remains but the role of the
federal government has had to grow. I don't think it's due to a
particular political persuasion. It's more due to necessity.




Maybe had to grow, but not be invasive growth as shown.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 18:28:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:




It's not any big surprise that the role of the federal government has
grown by necessity since the original concept of 13 basically
independent states under the general umbrella of a weak federal alliance
was established in 1781 and then became the US Constitution in 1789
replacing the original Articles of Confederation. In those days an
average citizen born in Pennsylvania probably never left the state in
his/her lifetime and never came across someone from Delaware,
Massachusetts or Georgia.

Obviously, things have changed since then and it's unrealistic to think
the kind of state autonomy envisioned in those days can still work
effectively today. The fundamental concept remains but the role of the
federal government has had to grow. I don't think it's due to a
particular political persuasion. It's more due to necessity.


This is far more recent than the powdered wig days. In the late teens
1920s they understood that if you wanted this kind of sweeping law,
you needed to amend the constitution. FDR got spanked for creeping
federalism in the 30s. It abated until LBJ and particularly Nixon who
thought the fed was all powerful (with him holding the strings)

Since then the federal government has been out of control.