“While our Constitution guarantees people [freedom of speech], the decision was made to allow states to regulate [freedom of speech], in order to allow them to develop strategies that meet the individual states’ demographic, economic and lifestyle needs. What works for Florida or Texas may not work for New Jersey and vice versa, and [freedom of speech] should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.” – Adaptation of statement by NJ State Senator Loretta Weinberg to njnewsroom.com [NB: In the original version of this post, “the right to vote” was in brackets. So I fixed the Fixed It For Ya post. Go figure.]
Another angle on the same argument: If it’s so critical that states have the latitude to tailor their gun laws to their own individual circumstances, how much greater is the need of the individual to tailor their gun ownership and gun use to their own particular situation? Surely the difference in individual circumstances far outstrips any difference between the states, and it cannot be denied that any immediate effect of violence and defense against it falls squarely on individuals not the state.
There you go bringing common sense into the argument… That has no place in D.C.!
The human right to self defense has no demographic, economic or lifestyle qualifications.
I fear this will be a can of worms but the more people that understand it the better: there isn’t actually a guaranteed right to vote in the constitution. All it has is a couple of ways you can’t be denied voting rights (race, gender, religion, poll tax, minimum of 18 years and that’s it). Beyond that, it’s not a guarantee like freedom of speech or right to bear arms.
She does have it right, however, that the individual states determine the qualifications. As long as they don’t touch the things the constitution talks about, they can pretty much restrict however much they want. If a state, for example, wanted everyone to take a free IQ test or minimum knowledge exam and achieve a minimum score before they can vote, that’s fine. They could also pass laws saying that people on welfare can’t vote.
Also fun to note: the word “democracy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the constitution. This country is a republic and the difference between the two are VERY important.
100% agreed. I enjoy how much this statement will piss off progressives. Their mantra is democracy above all else.
Yep, the founding fathers understood the dangers of a full blown democracy and its “mob rule” mentality.
In fact, the term “democrat” was actually an insult at the time.
You are very wrong about this.
The Supreme Court has ruled clearly against literacy tests as prerequisites to voting. A state MAY NOT imposes a minimum IQ requirement to vote.
Does a state have the authority to impose a qualification requirement prior to firearm ownership? Or does that count as an “infringement” on our rights?
Good, now we can get rid of all federal gun laws.
Look at all the evils (poll taxes, literacy tests, etc) that the ‘Soverign States’ enacted to keep large parts of their citizens from voting at all. Can you doubt that NJ and IL will use the same or similar tactics to deny citizens other, enumerated rights?
Illinois is actually trying to prevent that from happening. Recently a bill was submitted to the general assembly trying to remove Cook County/Chicago from the state.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/illinois-republican-wants-chicago-area-51st-state-160924927.html
Yeow! Another coyote ugly gungrabbing b!tch. Where do they find them?
Just plain “ugly gun grabbing.” My dogs are better looking thank you.
“Hopefully, Governor Christie and our Congressional leaders will stand up for our state and oppose this overreaching federal bill.”
She also offered these same remarks at the moment Obama-scare was passed, too, right? Right?
At least we can move to states with different rules. Federal laws make that impossible. State and local rules can be avoided.
Is it just me or is Loretta flipping everyone “the bird”?
Yes. Yes she is.
Yup – Everyone including the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and its pesky Bill of Rights, especially those Bill of Rights that she finds inconvenient and out of date with the times (i.e. the progressive movement).
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) gave a great speech on HR 822 when he asked if we should have 50 versions of the First, Fourth, and other Amendments, and if not, why then is everyone on the left so comfortable with doing it for the Second? Very much worth watching:
http://gowdy.house.gov/Multimedia/?VideoID=s430Rc-3eUI
That made me laugh right out loud. Knowing that HR 822 has already passed the House did not diminish my enjoyment in the slightest.
Comments are closed.