Quote:
Originally Posted by D
While I understand your point - and this isn't addressing it, keep in mind that, Constitutionally, Mass couldn't outlaw firearms, for it's protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution... so it's reserved for Federal Protection.
|
Let me rephrase it then: If Massachusetts restricted firearms to a well regulated militia
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Now, to address your point, I don't think anyone here has anything against the Federal Government, per se... but, I, for one, do think that the Federal Government has overstepped it's bounds time and time again by applying power it does not, except for in a rather convoluted sense, Constitutionally have.
American History is dotted with these transgressions - ever since our first President.
Ron Paul, in my estimation, is simply trying to bring the U.S. back to the Constitutional Framers' intent... which I would love to see be given a serious chance in my lifetime.
|
The Constitution was written rather a long time ago. That raises countless issues. For example, should websites be considered interstate commerce? If so, they'd fall under the federal government. Should the activities of corporations which operate nationally be considered a interstate commerce? Once again, they'd fall under the federal government.
The Constitution was written in an era where communication and travel were slow and arduous. When it was written, to travel across a large state would cost as much time as it would now cost to travel to the other side of the world.
The fragmentation Ron Paul supports runs counter to globalization. That makes me very doubtful about whether it could work. It seems to me that it would ultimately turn the US into something similar to - and as ineffective as - the European Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
As far as things being outlawed in one state, but lawful in another state... that's just fine by me - especially when I've given a choice of which state to live in.
|
But if you choose to live in the Massachusetts from my example, you will live under laws that are ineffective and merely symbolic because of the laws of an adjacent state. What point is there in banning booze if there is no way to stop it from coming into the state? What point in regulating firearms if they are sold to anyone with money just a few miles away?