'Not sure this is in the right category but the Mod Squad can move it of course if it's not.
This is a continuation of an exchange that started on the Scalise shooting thread that Mod2 locked because it had run its course.
When last we checked in on our hero (LFL) he was trying to get a substantive response from another poster who was seemingly being evasive. So let's join our fighters in the Arena of Ideas and may the best argument win. After moaning, kvetching, self-promoting and wallowing in both the role of aggrieved victim and of triumphant fearless upholder of Higher Standards in the face of laughably inferior people like me, (who disagree strongly with him), Jazzhead finally wrote:
"Federalism is not 'legalese'. State sovereignty is not 'legalese'. What is shocking is that so many so-called conservatives reject these concepts.
Why should Pennsylvania be forced to adopt Texas' gun culture? "
LateForLunch responded:
"Putting aside legalistic argument of entitlements of government, it may be stipulated that the People have a right to the lowest possible violent crime rate. If it can be demonstrated that more prevalence of carrying of firearms by the general population has a direct effect of reducing the violent crime rate, then the People have a legal entitlement unless proscribed with specificity by law, to enjoy lower crime rates by virtue of the free and robust exercise of their entitlement to carry firearms.
If some of the citizens of one state or the other decide that they for whatever reason, want to restrict the ability of other free citizens to enjoy second amendment rights, then it is the ones seeking abridgement who acquire the burden of proof to enact a restriction on those rights, not the other way around.
And I get the idea about shouting being unnecessary, but I share the frustration with legalistic arguments which somehow seem to make the same case - that there exists in the Constitution some sort of (forgive me) "bitch's veto" embodied in states rights, wherein sovereignty issues somehow supersede Constitutional declarations whenever some grievance arises from disgruntled citizens with hoplophobic, Statist inclinations in regard to Constitutionally-cemented 2A freedoms."
Hitting my stopwatch and awaiting Jazzhead's substantive response NOW!