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.