“State’s rights” arguments are literally only about hurting people. They hate it when states want to exercise the right to regulate guns or increase emissions standards.
In the USA, Sates' Rights is how incremental change happens, both good and bad.
Gay marriage was legalized one state at a time until public perception changed enough we were able to see it legalized at a federal level. Similarly, marijuana has been legalized in 24 states and medicinal use allowed in 38, even while the federal government remains in direct opposition to this by maintaining it as a schedule 1 drug.
You're just going to notice the effects more when you don't like what states are choosing in opposition to the federal government. Negative impacts on your life are typically easier to notice than positive ones.
Yeah the phrase “state’s rights” is so closely tied to the Confederacy and all the Lost Cause bullshit, so I can see why people would bristle at it. But it’s wild to say that the concept itself, outside of any additional context, is inherently bad.
Yep. It's one of those phrases that makes me a little uneasy waiting for the next thing out of the speaker's mouth, but as a general concept it allows more local control to citizens of the place where they actually live and work. That's typically a very good thing.
It's just a double edged sword, because sometimes people suck.
You’re expounding on one theory of federalism. I’m referring to something completely different—the people that loudly and repeatedly whine about “state’s rights” any time the federal government passes regulations or try to protect individual rights.
Not sure how you can regulate a 2nd amendment so that’s unconstitutional, and emission standards for what? We don’t even contrive to pollution like that. Oh you mean increase tax revenue? Than yes that’s only why they do it lol.
Can you try that again using words and sentences? The second amendment doesn’t mean gun ownership can’t be regulated. That’s a really fucking stupid thing to say.
The second amendment literally defines gun ownership as being part of a well regulated militia. That leaves a lot of room for regulation, straight up to arguing that the militia mentioned evolved into the national guard and that guns aren't fundamentally guaranteed outside of that.
I'm not necessarily arguing that but it is an argument that could be made.
159
u/orderofGreenZombies 8h ago
“State’s rights” arguments are literally only about hurting people. They hate it when states want to exercise the right to regulate guns or increase emissions standards.