Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cato

Texas on Federal Gun Control: "no"

Recommended Posts


ugh texas

 

In theory it could be good. Federal gun control can't help anyone anywhere, but intelligent state or local gun control might. Not that I expect Texas to do any such thing. But limiting federal power is almost always a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

limiting federal power is almost always a great idea.

 

As much as I love you, Caleb, this is an attitude I will just never get my head around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love you, Caleb, this is an attitude I will just never get my head around. 

 

I think it's because you Brits don't get what our federal government is really like. Imagine if all of Western Europe was under one government. It would be insane. The US is, geographically and in population, in a similar situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably be headed there for an open carry event even though I am not from Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's because you Brits don't get what our federal government is really like. Imagine if all of Western Europe was under one government. It would be insane. The US is, geographically and in population, in a similar situation.

 

Don't worry, I get it (I study it, I live with Americans etc.). I guess my problem is that the "limit federal government!" card is always a blurred line; it's never clear cut, and tends to be brought out only when it's convenient (like in instances like this, or over marriage equality etc.). There's no consistency. 

 

Also, you're forgetting the EU exists ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, I get it (I study it, I live with Americans etc.). I guess my problem is that the "limit federal government!" card is always a blurred line; it's never clear cut, and tends to be brought out only when it's convenient (like in instances like this, or over marriage equality etc.). There's no consistency. 

 

Also, you're forgetting the EU exists ;)

Believe me, I understand what you're saying.

In my opinion, the clear line is the constitution, which says that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution itself is reserved for the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Believe me, I understand what you're saying.

In my opinion, the clear line is the constitution, which says that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution itself is reserved for the states.

 

Yes.

 

Also, the consolidation of power is unwise from a Christian perspective.  Our doctrines state that man is inherently sinful.  To consolidate power into the hands of less and less people produces tyranny from the hearts of an unrighteous few.  Allocating power into the hands of many helps mitigate potential harm.  An evil person that controls a household can harm only a few people, but an evil person that controls a nation can harm multitudes.  The entire point of our system is to create an inefficient and slow moving machine - offering checks and balances along the way - so change comes slowly as opposed to the swift injustices of nations past.  The hope, is, we will have time to rectify issues as they crop up.

 

Ironically, the 2nd amendment helps secure our ability to rectify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me, I understand what you're saying.

In my opinion, the clear line is the constitution, which says that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution itself is reserved for the states.

 

It's when people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the benefits of small government... and the benefits of big government, and so cry wolf when it suits them. My personal opinions on the American Constitution aside, that is at least a start (although arguably not clear cut at all). 

 

 

This is just interesting for me, I suppose, because I live in post-referendum Scotland, where debates on devolution and federalism are everywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's way better when all the states work together and comply to the Federal Government, instead of doing their own thing (cough cough Texas). I would understand if it was a totally absurd law, but it's gun control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's way better when all the states work together and comply to the Federal Government, instead of doing their own thing (cough cough Texas). I would understand if it was a totally absurd law, but it's gun control. 

 

It's way better when the federal government keeps itself under control and lets the states do their own thing except where the Constitution says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's way better when all the states work together and comply to the Federal Government, instead of doing their own thing (cough cough Texas). I would understand if it was a totally absurd law, but it's gun control.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

OK, that was mean, let me rephrase:

1.) No

2.) Gun control is an absurd law in light of the 2nd Amendment

Edited by afriendlyatheist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's way better when all the states work together and comply to the Federal Government, instead of doing their own thing (cough cough Texas). I would understand if it was a totally absurd law, but it's gun control. 

It's way better when the federal government keeps itself under control and lets the states do their own thing except where the Constitution says otherwise.

 

At this point, both sides are just stating their preferences without justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, both sides are just stating their preferences without justification.

Maybe a debate topic would be good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a hard thought to accurately express.

 

I'm more concerned about who owns guns, more than the ownership itself. For all the people I know that do own guns, I don't think they should. It's an appeal to a sense of masculinity, power, fear, and intimidation for those whom they view as "inferior." I by no means would ever wish to propose a straw man argument and I'm by no means intending to, but my question is where does it stop? Or when does it stop? Handguns, machine guns, etc...?

 

For example, I work with a man who is an absolute meth addict who regularly carries around a pistol. I'm not convinced this man should have a pistol at all, he's a danger to himself and others. Further, he regularly gets drunk and fiddles around with his gun in this state, and has already fired many holes into his couch as a result of his stupidity, nearly killing one of our fellow coworkers. My concern is that people like this own guns without restraint or legislation that actually matters. Does this make sense?

 

For the immense culture of honor that exists in Texas (which sociologically explains their doings with this), I'm not convinced a state given freedom to hold firearms at pure freedom is a good idea.

 

On a side note, I personally think guns should be restricted in total. I see them as a problem that needs to be addressed and letting it continue to spiral further is certainly doing no one any good, to the best of my knowledge. But I understand that my weaponless utopia is not reality, so the best thing I can do is support legislation that helps make sure the people who want a gun should actually have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully more states follow suit.

 

For the discussion: The United States were meant to be self-governing, yet united for the purpose of maintaining their independence. The Federal government was not meant to have any unilateral decision making powers beyond those granted to it in the Constitution. Gun control is not one of those powers, therefore all Federal laws regarding firearms should be null.

 

Like many Americans, I desire a governement which protects our freedoms and allows us to pursue our own path with as little involvement as possible. I don't want a nanny state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×