While that may be true in some cases the relationship is still more personal. In my fathers home town I personally know my Mayor. She lives down the road from my father. Members of the city council routinely frequent the Yacht Club near my fathers house. While living there I personally met with my local Representative on a number of occasions to discuss varying issues. I had only communicated with my State Representatives via email (their aids) and a State Senator communicated with me via email once. Never met the governor or the Senators. The relationship is indeed much more personal the lower you go in government. Just like everything else, the higher up the food chain the less personal the relationship for obvious reasons and less in touch with the local community the elected officials become. Northern Florida is basically South Alabama, a much different ideology than those in Miami Dade. Both should have representation and blanket policies for the entire state will effect folks differently. For better or for worse, America is a very diverse nation, states themselves are also very diverse. Let them figure out what policies work best for their constituents.
Believe it or not, northern Florida is not basically south Alabama. Northern Florida also isn't like central or south Florida. I've lived in south Florida, south Alabama and north Florida. North Florida is my favorite of the three in lifestyle (and I've been here the longest and hope to stay here the rest of my life). I do agree that most government decisions should be made at as low of a level as possible. A few votes can make a big difference in the re-election of a local politician. I remember votign for a candidate who won by 4 votes.
I don't know, I lived in North Florida as well for 10 years as well as Southern Alabama and they were much more similar than the panhandle to central FL for example. But either way my point is that cultures and ideologies can vary drastically between states and even counties and cities within states. That is why I believe decisions need to be handled at the lowest level possible to ensure we aren't doing something that is good for one area but not good for another area even if they are in the same state. For example NY, I lived there for a few years as well and the folks in Upstate are nothing like the folks in NYC but NYC basically dictates policy for the entire state, much to the detriment of the folks living near the Adirondacks.
They won't figure out what policies work best for their constituents because they are afraid of losing funding from the feds. This policy of states being funded by the feds is bull. It is supposed to work the opposite way.
I know and it's a bad precedent. I agree that we need to have some universal laws here because we are a nation after all. Sure we are diverse and there are 50 states but unless we have some federal oversight then we are not actually a nation. However, those federal policies should be very baseline, as in logical things such as no murder, no rape, etc. I would not support Florida legalizing murder or anything like that. But when it comes to policy that directly effects people I support giving that power at the lowest level possible. Folks are just way too diverse, I've seen this personally when I lived in NY. Upstate NY IS NOT NYC but NYC dictates policy for that entire state and those living up north have their lives governed by the city slickers down south. I don't agree with that. Someone recently mentioned the statewide Red Flag law that is in place in Colorado but like 50 counties within Colorado refuse to comply with it. Good, that is how it should be. If the counties don't agree with the law then I support them rebelling against it because in my book the folks within the counties voted in their county commissioners and city councils. If they wish for their county to comply with the state law then they can vote in folks who will adhere to it. This whole dragging folks against their will towards policy is something I don't support. I'll admit I may be a bit extreme in my view of this but I am 100% in favor of states right for almost everything. I think that the federal government should just sit in DC and shut the hell up in regards to like 99% of everything and let the states decide. This gives citizens choice, and choice is good. If you don't like what Georgia does then move. We keep saying that diversity is our strength here in the US, fine I agree, but we are diverse, so allow folks to have their opinions and their ideologies but don't force everyone to adhere to your ideology because we are all different.
Red Flags are not like accusations of assault and rape: that is where the fallacy of false equivalency is obvious. No one's life is ruined when investigating such concerns, but many lives may be if not.
Interesting article. Some of you might not read it because of where it's from. Do yourself a favor and buck up and read it. Keep an open mind. It is addressing these laws and some of the issues with them. https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/red-flag-laws-not-good-solution-mass-shootings/
Are you under the impression you have anywhere near enough state support to repeal the 2nd amendment? Lol
At no time in US history even at the height of anti gun sentiment has there been enough congressional and state support to repeal the 2A...it remains the left’s greatest obstacle to their long term objectives.
The only way I would support any form of "Red Flag Law" is is there were a multi-million fine and minimum 5 years jail time for anyone who abuses the Red Flag system outside of its designed intent. Without substantial penalties for maliciously sending BATF Agents into ransacking someone's home & unconstitutionally seizing that person's firearms even temporarily, Red Flag Laws would inevitably be misused by angry ex-spouses, vindictive neighbors, squeamish hoplophobes etc to endanger & harass law abiding gun owners.
Along with charging such individuals with first degree murder if the targeted individual is killed in the process.
Regrettably, the miscreant who "SWATTED" and is responsible for the death of an innocent man only got 20 years in a recent incident. "Prankster sentenced to 20 years for fake 911 call that led police to kill an innocent man" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ke-call-that-led-police-kill-an-innocent-man/ EXCERPT "A California man was sentenced to 20 years in prison on Friday for phoning a false hostage threat to police in Wichita, resulting in the death of an innocent man."CONTINUED
Another question popped into my head. Like asset seizure laws, can they use Red Flag Laws to remove you from your home and keep everything?
The idea is to remove firearms from the person, not the person from the home, or the home to the government. That reasoning seems confused.
And swiftly ruled unconstitutional. Due process comes before removal of a right, not after. Can’t take away someone’s right on “suspicion”
I know it is. I understand constitutional law. That’s how I’m able to pint out you are incorrect. And it’s dishonest to not quote a poster. I know you do it hoping people won’t see it. It makes you feel like you got the last word.
