Gail Collin on gun control:
Personally, I’m worn down from arguing. Florida, follow your own star. Arizona, arm your kindergarteners. Just stop trying to impose your values on places where the thinking is dramatically different.
Really, just leave us alone. If you don’t like our rules, don’t come here. Is that too much to ask?
The problem, of course, is that gun advocates are trying to impose their permissive carry-laws on the rest of us.
Maybe if New Yorkers are made to accept their guns, they should be forced to accept our gay marriages.
Peter,
I've argued for years with my fellow conservatives that we should propose a compromise of; repeal Defense of Marriage with nationwide recognition of all states' marriage licenses without regard to gender in return for a nationwide cencealed carry with licenses issued by indiviudal states but with some common training and competency elements (such as exists for driver's licenses). Individual states can still set restrictions on carry (e.g., schools, arenas, etc.) but have to recognize another state's permit.
Usually I'm looked at like I've grown two heads so I'm glad someone finally agrees with me.
I like the idea… but I wouldn't support it in practice. I would hate to have legal armed thugs in NYC simply because they retain the residency in a right to carry state.
As to the recognition of gay marriage in other states… maybe I'm too selfish to care. And I like New York being better.
"Thugs" that could pass a criminal background check, provide fingerprints and pass a minimum competency? You're not being open minded about this.
OK, let me rephrase: I don't want any more people with concealed guns in New York City. But largely because I am afraid the some of those would be thugs for hire. But also I don't want some out-of-town non-thug getting scared at being surrounded by liberals, illegal immigrants, gay men in chaps, or Puerto Ricans and pulling a Zimmerman.
If you think you need a gun here as a tourist, please stay away.
I support *police* being allowed to carry in other states. But that's just a curtsey to law enforcement.
I almost spit my coffee through my nose laughing at your first paragraph directly above. You can take the boy out of East Baltimore but you can't take the East Baltimore out of the boy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I've got to go get another cup of coffee….
In contemporary American political culture, a committment to federalism, at least on the the part of a politician, generally just means that he thinks his tribe is relatively stronger at the state level than at the national level.
Seriously – once political energy migrated to the national level, we were screwed. EVERY problem demands a federal response, no matter how clearly inappropriate. Vermonters and Texans might want and need different health-care systems? Crazy talk. And on and on.
I would be fine with a state by state approach to gun control, within the bounds of the 2nd Ammendment. BTW, the 2nd Ammendment clearly should be interpreted as allowing fairly extensive regulation of firearms.
Of course, if the NRA (which I'm not a fan of) doesn't fight to the death on every damn thing, what are the chances that a certain class of Vermonters and Californians wouldn't seize the opening to try very hard to take guns away from Texans and Coloradans?