States rights doesn’t mean they can infringe on the rights of the people

I realize the ability (and to a certain extent the desire) to get elected is largely uncorrelated with intelligence but the ugly parallels to statements like the following just jump out of the page at me:

While our Constitution guarantees people a right to bear arms, the decision was made to allow states to regulate guns, 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 gun control should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.

Replace “a right to bear arms” with “will not be slaves” and “guns” with “ni**ers”.

Now start heating up the tar and gathering the feathers for New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg.

4 thoughts on “States rights doesn’t mean they can infringe on the rights of the people

  1. I guess I don’t understand allowing the states to regulate guns. The Constitution is a bill of negative liberties, and the way I read it all parties are barred from regulating guns. It is a right which cannot be infringed without violating the Constitution.

    The second amendment is all about preventing tyranny. The president can call out the military and the only check or balance to that power is a well regulated militia. Regulated being used in the sense of a clock, where the regulator keeps it running perfectly. This is the only thing that prevents a president from declaring himself a dictator.

  2. Judging by her surname, I would guess that Senatrix Weinberg is a member of The Tribe. What makes this funny is that that bunch are arguably the most racist people on Earth, with the possible exception of the Japanese.

  3. ” gun control should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.”

    So this means she is going to help repeal all federal gun control laws?

  4. “What works for Florida or Texas may not work for New Jersey and vice versa, and gun control should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.”

    We’re not supposed to talk about it lest we be branded as intolerant, but how about the anti-gun left try that argument with abortion? Hmm?

    Point is; they’ll use the state’s rights argument when and only when they think it supports their leftist agenga. In fact they don’t give a damn about state’s rights.

Comments are closed.