“Given the Republicans’ historic support of states’ rights, it’s a bit rich that they are now seeking a federal law to trump state laws on something so crucial to public safety as gun ownership. We hope members of Congress have closely read the studies that have found that states with the most-relaxed gun-control laws tend to have higher rates of gun deaths than states with tighter controls.” – Los Angeles Times editorial board in Say no to gun reciprocity bill [via phillytrib.com]
ENTER TO WIN 1000 ROUNDS OF IMI 9MM AMMUNITION
 |
|
Click here for more information about IMI System Ammunition
Entries will be added to TTAG’s mailing list and shared with IMI Systems
It’s “a bit rich” that California is crying about this because the rest of us flyover states don’t want to bow down to their intellectual elite ideas of Utopia.
It was the Democrats who claimed the civil war was all about “states’ rights.”
That’s what’s rich.
Is California afraid they might become like Vermont? The horror!
There needs to be a way to hold the MSM accountable for the deliberate spreading of propaganda. Myself I am old enough to remember local tv stations being required to present differing opinions on air. This should become a requirement for all of today’s media
You are thinking of the “fairness” doctrine. Under that jackboot, everyone who wanted to comment was given time/print. The “fairness” idea was that only leftist ideas were valid, so the bulk of “fairness” was repetition of a single line of thought. Consider, the MSM (and every leftist organization out there) demanded “equal time” to respond to something Rush said on national TV. Rush was the unfairness, arrayed against every other media outlet, of any kind. It even got to the point where a single sound bite used to illustrate a story on TV ended up requiring “equal time”. Even when the sound bite was used to “prove” a leftist political opinion was superior.
“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
– – A.J. Liebling
As someone who remembers the days of the “fairness doctrine,” I’ll just say this about that:
You don’t want to go back there, ever.
The “fairness doctrine” was never enacted explicitly by Congress, it was a creation of the FCC and imposed upon licensed broadcasters. When the Reagan-appointed commissioners of the FCC suspended the regulation in 1987, the Democrats howled, and passed legislation to re-enact the fairness doctrine as statute law. Reagan vetoed the legislation.
The Democrats tried again in 1991, but tabled it because Bush Sr. threatened a veto.
The way stations met the letter of the fairness doctrine regulation was to air opposing views as editorials or PSA’s in the wee hours of the morning, just before broadcasting a test pattern for the rest of the night.
The Democrats wouldn’t be howling for the re-imposition of the fairness doctrine if they didn’t think that it would suit their interests much more than the current situation. For you youngsters born in the 80’s or later, in the days before the fairness doctrine was challenged in 1969, the media marched in a lock-step to the tune of Washington DC or the NY Times, whomever the media decided was the drummer at that moment. This is how we got lots of the crap from the 60’s – the Great Society, GCA of ’68, the loss in Vietnam, etc. The media had an incessant drumbeat on these topics, and they didn’t have to entertain any opposing views.
One of the biggest reasons why the country is able to do things like elect Trump and surprise all these so-called ‘political experts’ is because we have ways of disseminating views, news and information without the FCC and media corporations acting as gatekeepers.
“States” don’t have rights. States are a collective identity with an agreed upon boundary, also known as a government. Only individual humans can have rights. “States” have individuals in them who are awarded authority to carry out acts on behalf of those within the boundaries of said state. The state itself is not any kind of entity and only exists in the minds of humans.
Correct. People have rights. States have powers.
It wasn’t uncommon back in colonial days for government entities to be referenced as having rights, but there;s a pattern to it: the smaller always has rights over against the larger, which only has powers. So the states have rights not with respect to citizens, but only with respect to standing against the federal government. Of course to continue that concept, counties have rights over against the states, cities have rights over against states and counties, right on down to the font of all rights, individuals.
The assumption involved is that the smaller entity is meant to protect the rights of the citizens against the larger. Unfortunately that rested on the idea that the smaller is necessarily more responsive to the citizens, which in a heavily populated country is no longer true since even city mayors are only known personally to a small fraction of the citizens. This is why we need a “Presumption of Liberty” amendment stating that whichever law more strongly protects individual liberty shall prevail.
Wait – where are these studies that show states with less restrictions on firearms have higher rates of gun deaths?
First, if you’ve got the money you can get a study that says your poop smells like roses.
Second, it’s probably true since 2/3 of ‘gundeaths’ are suicides. I haven’t seen any studies pertaining to suicide rates in red or blue states, but it would make sense that suicide by gun would be higher in states with more of them. Gun crime on the other hand seems to be significantly higher blue states, or at least blue cities.
Hey bro,
The states with the most gun crime are the states with the highest democrat voters. There is a US map with an overlay of democratic voting area. There is another map with an overlay of gun crime. It is crazy that the areas with the most gun crime have the most gun laws, the most crime, the most gun crime, and the most democrat voters. Suicide is considered a gun crime.
‘Suicide is considered a gun crime.’
Show me one single case where someone who successfully committed suicide was prosecuted and convicted for it.
In other news, California leads the nation in people committing suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.
It’s a population density thing. For example, in Montana, with a population of about one million people, if ten people are killed with a gun it’s one per hundred thousand. In California, population of about 34 million people, it would take 340 people shot to death for the same rate. So, though it is obvious that 340 is way worse than ten, they can claim the rates are the same. Like the Gov. pointed out, most of those Montana ones are suicides while most of the California ones are homicides.
These aren’t the actual numbers, just simplified for the example.
I did a little googling and it seems the states with the highest suicide rates are the most sparsely populated. Wyoming and Alaska at the top. And even in Alaska the suicide rate goes up as you go north. Naturally these are the places with the highest gun ownership, but correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps the 20 hours of darkness every winters day, the lack of companionship, particularly female companionship, poverty, alcoholism, etc has something to do with that. But it does make for a convenient misleading statistic for the grabbers.
Actually, the suicide rate is higher during the neverending day than during the endless night. If I recall correctly, it has to do with people not getting enough sleep and over doing the work load and such.
Trying to think back to the last time I heard about States Rights in combination with Session….oh yeah, well it looks like the Democrats haven’t changed their ways, just their states of choice. They are trying to hold people in a type slavery. Again. Still.
The Democrats’ perspective on “states’ rights” has been hilarious and duplicitous since their first use of this argument.
Let’s go back to the Buchanan administration, before the Civil War. The Democrats were arguing for “states’ rights” to enable the states where slavery was legal to maintain slavery in the face of the growing abolition movement at the federal level of government. Buchanan was a Democrat, pro-slavery (and quite possibly our first homosexual president, but let’s leave that for another day).
As a result of the Democrats’ “states’ rights” argument, the Utah territory decided that polygamy was A-OK, because that’s again something that isn’t prohibited in the US Constitution, and went forward with their plan to settle a territory where the Latter Day Saints could practice their religion without the hinderance of laws that prohibited polygamy.
Well, the NY City press brayed and howled (as they have been wont to do for 200+ years now) about these evil Mormons and their wicked polygamous ways, and the Buchanan administration was hoist upon their own petard of states’ rights. Buchanan sent US troops westward to confront the Mormon leadership, but the US troops were dissuaded from arriving in what is now Salt Lake City by Mormons with rifles who met them east of SLC. The Buchanan administration was thoroughly embarrassed by this outcome, slavery continued under his administration (and the Dredd Scott decision stated that blacks weren’t humans, so they were not to be afforded the rights of citizens), and we lurched towards armed civil war.
The Democrats have been talking out both sides of their mouths on “states’ rights” ever since.
I seem to remember this little thing called the Constitution. The 10th amendment says..
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Yet in that same document is the 2nd Amendment, and for the life of me I am wondering how the “States” can just ignore that. The states cannot violate the rights of the people. And the 2nd guarantees the right to us not the states. As stated in the 10th the powers not delegated, the 2nd says that “shall not be infringed” is delegated at the fed level. Meaning all US citizens have the right no matter which state they are in. So lets get Constitutional Carry back where it belongs, to us the people not to be hindered by the pols in the states.
‘the studies that have found that states with the most-relaxed gun-control laws tend to have higher rates of gun deaths than states with tighter controls’ THIS IS A BLATANT AND OUTRIGHT LIE. Yes the tenth amendment does support states “rights” BUT states rights do NOT usurp the constitution, PERIOD.
It’s more of a selective massaging of the data to mislead. They usually include suicides in their numbers which while being completely misleading can lead to the statement of higher “gun deaths”* being accurate for how it’s defined.
*including suicide
The 10th Amendment (states rights) only applies to things not already enumerated in the constitution. The second amendment is already enumerated and it states “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.” So all state gun control laws are unconstitutional.
This became true only after the adoption of the 14th Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”)..
Individual states used to have “state-supported” religions and this practice continued until as late as 1877 (NH).
““Given the Republicans’ historic support of states’ rights, it’s a bit rich that they are now seeking a federal law to trump state laws on something so crucial to public safety as gun ownership. ”
Given the Evil POS Democrats’ historic support of communisn, tyranny, and global-facism, and satanic-service and fetish-ism, it’s a bit rich that anyone of their F’d up ilk open their Fing mouths now about anyones support of any federal law or state law on something so crucial to public safety as gun ownership.
F the evil POS (D) until the UN begs you to stop, then F them twice as hard.
Unfortunately for the criminals of California, there is a thing called The Bill of Rights. Since California decided to partake in such a union, they have to follow the law by protecting human rights. If any State doesn’t want to protect human rights within their borders, the United States of America is supposed to force them to or that State can decide to secede from the U.S.A.
There is no need for a law to declare that the States must follow The Bill of Rights or leave the U.S.A. There just has to be enforcement of the law, which shouldn’t be hard now that there is a lot of “law enforcement” officers with military gear.
Playing passive aggressive games doesn’t get you solid results.
The evil (D)’s, and all wet-shit sympathetic (R)’s, principium finis, starts tomorrow, and all you F’rs can thank POS Mueller, Hillary, and Soros.
HAPPY MONDAY FV<KERS
People have rights. States have powers. There is no such thing as “state’s rights.”
People have rights. States have powers. Those powers are executed by your ahole neighbors who needed a job. Those ahole neighbors are all humans, and they all sleep somewhere.
Yes, this is a matter of “powers” reserved to the entities of Government. It is also a matter of enforcement. The Federal Government should be enforcing the Second Amendment’s prohibition of infringement upon the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Yet the Federal Government fails to do so and allows the States to use their “powers” of legislation, adjudication and enforcement to egregiously violate the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Neither the Federal or State governments have any “rights”, only the powers granted to them by the People who are the only party to this situation who actually have Rights.
Comments are closed.