Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) |
Author: Lapsody   😊 😞
Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: The 2A is obsolete
Date: 03/07/24 10:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ok, so in short: the states can do what they want as long as it doesn't violate federal law.

Yep. In all things where there is no federal law, the States are in charge. I mean, I'm sure there are probably some odd little exceptions here and there around the country (like maybe some State-Indian tribe compacts or something like that), but for the most part the States are the sovereign in all areas where federal law doesn't govern.


And it's been my experience in life that no one gives up an advantage unless there's a benefit to them, quid pro quo. And an abstract idea such as we all benefit from the reduction in violence and murder if we allow the federal Government to restrict the arms we are allowed to have is too difficult an idea to sell across 50 states.

And it definitely appears that those shaping the 14th intended to get an individual right to keep and bear arms to the population, and blacks, so reinterpreting that is far to difficult. One thing left is too pick up the original definition of infringed - to break, violate, not its meaning now of encroach, to allow the Federal government to limit the type of arms the people can have, and that is too difficult right now. We have to wait for zealots and members of the USSC to die off to attempt it, with no guarantee of success. The idea of passing an amendment is just extremely difficult, and not worth trying IMHO.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Lapsody here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (15) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community