Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
If the mass shooters that you refer to (not Muslim) predominantly came from certain other countries, the federal government could impose a travel ban from those countries. But if the mass shooters live in the State, the federal government should defer to that State's legal system.
BTW, you first referred to the "federal" government being expected to do something, then in comparing mass shooting to terrorism you eliminated the "federal" and just referred to government. We have been conditioned by the Progressive trend in politics to merge the two--federal government and government being the same thing. The Progressive mindset is that government SHOULD be centralized. That government and federal government should be the same thing. That the federal government (government) should be involved in all things that influence our lives.
Travel bans from other countries, constitutionally, should be the federal government's responsibility. Mass shootings in Nevada, which don't involve foreign influence, should be the responsibility of Nevada. It may be "perplexing" to you why those concerned about the survival of the Constitution as the actual "law of the land" make a distinction between responsibilities of various levels of government, and that "government" doesn't automatically mean "federal" government. But the distinction should be obvious to those who believe that a federation is preferable to a monolithic State.
...it's almost like marriage
Hybrid Mode
