It's time for the USA to balkanize. How can that happen peacefully?

[KindaMeh]

My fear I guess would be that homicide may come as a result of the divorce in an instance where it actually goes through. Either the secession happens with a for the most part Democrat controlled federal government, and they feel they have to move to stop it by force if necessary to prevent loss of reputation, and the public that elected the people who voted to secede potentially come to their defense bloodily. Or Republicans snag power nationally or the like and Texas doesn't really feel the need to follow through on secession. But even if it happened and was somehow successful and happened peacefully, I feel like it would open the door to other such conflicts as this becomes a thing that states think they can do when they don't get their way/match the exact politics of the national level. Also, could wind up seriously weakening Republicans electorally say for the presidency and set the stage for further mismatches between Republican led states and the feds. More to the point, I feel the world potentially suffers when America is divided, weakened, or wracked by turmoil. We may not always be the perfect paragons of heroism that whoever wishes us to be in our actions abroad, but I do believe we are necessary.

  Honestly a big frigging part of the whole problem is Republicans.  They are useless and feckless.  They are as harmful to the nation as democrats are.  I have no issue with America being divided and "weakened".  Many states in the USA are larger, much larger, than most european nations.  Trying to always chase ever expanding GDP with no attention to how that bottom line gets created and no care as to the effects on local communities and people has caused a whole bunch of this bullshit.    As for the USA being an empire flexing the world over...I think time for that has passed.  If the "world" suffers because the USA is no longer propping it up with billions of tax dollars anymore...so be it.  Suffering is a key element to growth, development, and actually solving problems.

I mean, IDK if any faction that isn't either Republican or Democrat would be able to pull off a secession or hold power after. I guess that may be a problem with a 2 party majoritarian system that doesn't do proportional representation or allow as much for a diversity of viable affiliation with various ideologies. (Not saying we should turn into Germany, and I still revere the founding fathers' vision to some degree, but perhaps worth noting.)

As regards chasing GDP and corporate interests at all costs and political power overshadowing in many cases various local populations and little guys that get stepped on, yeah, that is likewise a problem. Still, I dunno if it can so easily be solved by Balkanization or if successful secession would just trigger the seceding states to become new nations that ignore the needs of districts and municipalities for the "greater good".

I also acknowledge that some US states could out-compete various countries. Assuming that they still have positive trade relations and lines of supply with the rest of America that don't get disrupted, and that the new nation states don't all want to negotiate new trade and tariff agreements within the now dissolved USA, that a huge economic shock doesn't hit everybody, etcetera.

Also, yeah, US influence is dying the world over, and we do at times do too much that doesn't benefit us or even the real global interest. A secession crisis would show the world just how much they rely on us, for sure. That said, I also think at that point China and other authoritarian states rule the roost with zero accountability and we see the rise of a lot of powers I don't think most people would want to see ascendant. More to the point, I think for all its faults, American influence abroad is broadly to the world's benefit and not detriment. Likewise, a strong America, while strength should as you noted earlier not be put above all else at all costs, is still to my mind good for Americans.

  My point is, neither party wants any such thing to happen, as the parties are in reality made up of a tiny, tiny portion of elite Americans.  The rest of the country is sort of forced to pick a flavor in a duopoly that largely keeps status quo.

Well, that's a very valid point.

[oggsmash]

  Strength gained through zero effort and zero real cost (the nation is funded on a credit card) has no real value to the citizens.  If by good for americans you mean live with little effort, struggle and only dealing with first world problems...sure.   I think people are too far removed from reality at this point, China for example does what they want now, and they own the USA.  The USA has zero interest in being a strong nation and promoting nationalism in the sense of building national pride, accountability to citizens, and operating in the best interests of citizens first.  Why be a nation that villainizes nationalism?

    Honestly, the federal structure of the USA as it exists now, seems to constantly be the enemy of most citizens in the USA.  I have no issue with an enemy crumbling, do I think that crumbling will be painless to me and mine?  No.  All real progress and development comes with discomfort and pain (you do not get really strong legs without suffering in the squat rack) and I am OK with that.  I prefer whatever comes after to what is likely to come from the current path (a large collapse from the weight of empire imploding itself). 

[KindaMeh]

  Strength gained through zero effort and zero real cost (the nation is funded on a credit card) has no real value to the citizens.  If by good for americans you mean live with little effort, struggle and only dealing with first world problems...sure.   I think people are too far removed from reality at this point, China for example does what they want now, and they own the USA.  The USA has zero interest in being a strong nation and promoting nationalism in the sense of building national pride, accountability to citizens, and operating in the best interests of citizens first.  Why be a nation that villainizes nationalism?

    Honestly, the federal structure of the USA as it exists now, seems to constantly be the enemy of most citizens in the USA.  I have no issue with an enemy crumbling, do I think that crumbling will be painless to me and mine?  No.  All real progress and development comes with discomfort and pain (you do not get really strong legs without suffering in the squat rack) and I am OK with that.  I prefer whatever comes after to what is likely to come from the current path (a large collapse from the weight of empire imploding itself).

I'll begin by noting that I don't think we should be running such a huge deficit, for sure, or spending money we didn't earn to feel or look better off than we are, so you make a solid point on the credit card bit. And yes, people are somewhat removed from reality and from international threats, but that doesn't mean those threats just go away. The US may not be strong or properly interested in the right kind of strength to the extent that it used to be. But to my mind that just means add more logs to a dwindling campfire and fix the national policy and culture that led us to that point. We spend enough abroad to make actionable change to the world for the benefit of America, cosmopolitan interests, or whatever for the most part, we just need to leverage it. We spend enough, we have a solid government system for the most part, we just need to use it properly and reclaim what is our as the American public. What I fear doing is kicking out the campfire when there is something still salvageable, because we can't say for sure that what comes out of a dissolution of our sacred union would be any better in the long run, and as you seem to acknowledge in the short term it would likely hurt and be worse. Also, I do care about our ability to compete with other nations, because I see many of them as enemies or threats to America, including some of our alleged allies. I think we do that better as a bloc, and that we haven't yet reached the point where we can no longer rally and ought to go our separate ways. Not to say that you may not be right eventually, the way things are going.

[KindaMeh]

Also, yeah, states and municipalities need better protections, the federal government needs to stop spending and poking its nose where it shouldn't be spending and poking its nose (On which note, earmarks are terrifying examples of the abuse of federal funds to do things only localities should be allowed to do. https://thedispatch.com/p/surprise-pork-barrel-politics-is), and we do need reform and better protection  of real, not fake, constitutional rights and the spirit of the letter of the law. But this can be done. I don't think the situation is yet so unsalvageable that chaos and dissolution are the answer, nor do I think that system collapse leading to strife and struggle will necessarily produce a better system that even the questionable one we have. We can take back America, we don't have to hole up and abandon it. I hope. 

[oggsmash]

  Strength gained through zero effort and zero real cost (the nation is funded on a credit card) has no real value to the citizens.  If by good for americans you mean live with little effort, struggle and only dealing with first world problems...sure.   I think people are too far removed from reality at this point, China for example does what they want now, and they own the USA.  The USA has zero interest in being a strong nation and promoting nationalism in the sense of building national pride, accountability to citizens, and operating in the best interests of citizens first.  Why be a nation that villainizes nationalism?

    Honestly, the federal structure of the USA as it exists now, seems to constantly be the enemy of most citizens in the USA.  I have no issue with an enemy crumbling, do I think that crumbling will be painless to me and mine?  No.  All real progress and development comes with discomfort and pain (you do not get really strong legs without suffering in the squat rack) and I am OK with that.  I prefer whatever comes after to what is likely to come from the current path (a large collapse from the weight of empire imploding itself).

I'll begin by noting that I don't think we should be running such a huge deficit, for sure, or spending money we didn't earn to feel or look better off than we are, so you make a solid point on the credit card bit. And yes, people are somewhat removed from reality and from international threats, but that doesn't mean those threats just go away. The US may not be strong or properly interested in the right kind of strength to the extent that it used to be. But to my mind that just means add more logs to a dwindling campfire and fix the national policy and culture that led us to that point. We spend enough abroad to make actionable change to the world for the benefit of America, cosmopolitan interests, or whatever for the most part, we just need to leverage it. We spend enough, we have a solid government system for the most part, we just need to use it properly and reclaim what is our as the American public. What I fear doing is kicking out the campfire when there is something still salvageable, because we can't say for sure that what comes out of a dissolution of our sacred union would be any better in the long run, and as you seem to acknowledge in the short term it would likely hurt and be worse. Also, I do care about our ability to compete with other nations, because I see many of them as enemies or threats to America, including some of our alleged allies. I think we do that better as a bloc, and that we haven't yet reached the point where we can no longer rally and ought to go our separate ways. Not to say that you may not be right eventually, the way things are going.

  Our "allies" spy on us more than our "enemies".  I have people saying my daughter should go into a locker room with boys who say they are girls, be forced to compete in sports with them.  That is a bridge I can not cross, and I can not share space with people who believe things like that.  We are not going to be able to get along as neighbors, same values, similar interests, or in any other way where their point of view can in any way affect my life.  I am not alone in this sort of thinking.  I do not think there is some huge enemy of the USA dwelling outside its borders, its enemies all reside for the most part in DC.  Unless there is a radical change of federal government and direction, I prefer to let the states split and the folks who want men competing with women can have their space, and the folks who are in line with me can have their space.  People in between can go where they fit best.  It will hurt, it will be for a while "worse" than status quo.  I am finished with perpetual wars and pretending we are about to be invaded or other such nonsense regarding foreign "enemies".   This government allows "enemies" to buy US companies and large swaths of land to operate here now, not to mention how much political influence they can buy, as well as NGOs who owe NO allegiance to the USA.  Our "enemies" already own our "leaders" lock stock and barrel.     A change would be uncomfortable and it would have pain.  You do not plant an oak tree now to enjoy its shade tomorrow.  You do it now so your kids, and their kids will enjoy the shade.   

   The current path is untenable....hiking across rough terrain is harder than driving down a road....but when you can see the road eventually goes off the end of a cliff...you are just enjoying temporary comfort for eventual catastrophe.   That uncomfortable hike will both teach, develop, and allow some space to come up with better.   The current systems benefits lots of people, and we have generations that have NEVER had a tough time (the Depression is way in the rear view) and do all they can to avoid a tough time, even if the tough time might be better for them long run.  Getting up and jogging now is harder than enjoying that bowl of ice cream....but too much of that ice cream and no exercise is eventually going to kill you. 

  I have no delusions that some sort of amicable split ever happens.   I also realize I could be completely wrong and some revolutionary tech or control metric comes into being that allows the USA and the whole world to function as one big old giant utopia.  Taking Human nature as it is, and the general trend of both democracies and empires though....it looks like a dark age is on the horizon. 

[KindaMeh]

  Strength gained through zero effort and zero real cost (the nation is funded on a credit card) has no real value to the citizens.  If by good for americans you mean live with little effort, struggle and only dealing with first world problems...sure.   I think people are too far removed from reality at this point, China for example does what they want now, and they own the USA.  The USA has zero interest in being a strong nation and promoting nationalism in the sense of building national pride, accountability to citizens, and operating in the best interests of citizens first.  Why be a nation that villainizes nationalism?

    Honestly, the federal structure of the USA as it exists now, seems to constantly be the enemy of most citizens in the USA.  I have no issue with an enemy crumbling, do I think that crumbling will be painless to me and mine?  No.  All real progress and development comes with discomfort and pain (you do not get really strong legs without suffering in the squat rack) and I am OK with that.  I prefer whatever comes after to what is likely to come from the current path (a large collapse from the weight of empire imploding itself).

I'll begin by noting that I don't think we should be running such a huge deficit, for sure, or spending money we didn't earn to feel or look better off than we are, so you make a solid point on the credit card bit. And yes, people are somewhat removed from reality and from international threats, but that doesn't mean those threats just go away. The US may not be strong or properly interested in the right kind of strength to the extent that it used to be. But to my mind that just means add more logs to a dwindling campfire and fix the national policy and culture that led us to that point. We spend enough abroad to make actionable change to the world for the benefit of America, cosmopolitan interests, or whatever for the most part, we just need to leverage it. We spend enough, we have a solid government system for the most part, we just need to use it properly and reclaim what is our as the American public. What I fear doing is kicking out the campfire when there is something still salvageable, because we can't say for sure that what comes out of a dissolution of our sacred union would be any better in the long run, and as you seem to acknowledge in the short term it would likely hurt and be worse. Also, I do care about our ability to compete with other nations, because I see many of them as enemies or threats to America, including some of our alleged allies. I think we do that better as a bloc, and that we haven't yet reached the point where we can no longer rally and ought to go our separate ways. Not to say that you may not be right eventually, the way things are going.

  Our "allies" spy on us more than our "enemies".  I have people saying my daughter should go into a locker room with boys who say they are girls, be forced to compete in sports with them.  That is a bridge I can not cross, and I can not share space with people who believe things like that.  We are not going to be able to get along as neighbors, same values, similar interests, or in any other way where their point of view can in any way affect my life.  I am not alone in this sort of thinking.  I do not think there is some huge enemy of the USA dwelling outside its borders, its enemies all reside for the most part in DC.  Unless there is a radical change of federal government and direction, I prefer to let the states split and the folks who want men competing with women can have their space, and the folks who are in line with me can have their space.  People in between can go where they fit best.  It will hurt, it will be for a while "worse" than status quo.  I am finished with perpetual wars and pretending we are about to be invaded or other such nonsense regarding foreign "enemies".   This government allows "enemies" to buy US companies and large swaths of land to operate here now.  Our "enemies" already own our "leaders" lock stock and barrel.     A change would be uncomfortable and it would have pain.  You do not plant an oak tree now to enjoy its shade tomorrow.  You do it now so your kids, and their kids will enjoy the shade.   

   The current path is untenable....hiking across rough terrain is harder than driving down a road....but when you can see the road eventually goes off the end of a cliff...you are just enjoying temporary comfort for eventual catastrophe.   That uncomfortable hike will both teach, develop, and allow some space to come up with better.   The current systems benefits lots of people, and we have generations that have NEVER had a tough time (the Depression is way in the rear view) and do all they can to avoid a tough time, even if the tough time might be better for them long run.  Getting up and jogging now is harder than enjoying that bowl of ice cream....but too much of that ice cream and no exercise is eventually going to kill you. 

  I have no delusions that some sort of amicable split ever happens.   I also realize I could be completely wrong and some revolutionary tech or control metric comes into being that allows the USA and the whole world to function as one big old giant utopia.  Taking Human nature as it is, and the general trend of both democracies and empires though....it looks like a dark age is on the horizon.

I think a dark age is possible, but not certain, especially if we don't give up on national debate and reform. If we do, the far left will win via demographic shifts and everyone being unwilling to try to convince their neighbors of things they ought by all rational rights to be convinced of. I don't think it will happen without effort and pain either way, but I think we need to work with what we have.

Well, I understand that for many the political and moral divide has grown to the point where it does seem nigh impossible to coexist with folks on the other side of it. That being said, when you look at how narrow say right wing or left wing support margins are even in the places where they hold a reasonably solid majority, it becomes obvious we may not have a choice but to live in the same state, if nothing else. (ex: Texas almost got flipped in the last presidential election, and admittedly biased polling even predicted it would be.) So I don't know if balkanization would fully solve the problem. The enemy, as you say, is in even red states and is growing, and failing forced mass exodus or us making a serious effort to convince people and show what a proper nation can and should be, they may well be poised to inherit  and do there what they have done on the national level.

Also, it was not my intention to say that national issues should be subordinate to international policy or concerns, or just raise fear relating to enemies without. But such concerns do matter. I think the world almost certainly will fall into a dark age unless the US steps up both at home and abroad to help lead not only via government spending, but by example and culture. True, our prospects for this happening are not incredibly sanguine, but I think it's the best shot we have, and that dissolution at best would buy time until the balkanized states themselves decline or collapse.

[KindaMeh]

That said, elite capture is very real, as you note, and taking back the halls of power won't be easy. We need to limit special interest groups, as well as some of the powers individual corporations and organizations have, especially things like social media companies' ability to dictate the national dialogue by denying services and speech along political lines. We need to fight back when people try to push immoral and absurd BS through the system to us and to our children and expect us to live with it. Which I'm sure you already do. We need to show that free speech can and will banish the darkness of lies, misinformation, and hyper partisan media. For this to happen, we need to be engaged, and hungrier than our opponents in their mad frenzy. But just making the national system smaller and expecting a different result is probably not going to work, from my perspective. And again, I think it's a lot of pain and hurt for potentially no or negative gain. Yes, suffering builds character in a way, or at least toughness, but that doesn't mean it's an end unto itself or necessarily will end in a better system. Plenty of places have suffered plenty and have emerged worse than not only our admittedly flawed system, but also when they started. I don't think it's the best of our options, and might not be even if it were that or nothing. Though I'm perhaps not as sure on that latter point.

[oggsmash]

That said, elite capture is very real, as you note, and taking back the halls of power won't be easy. We need to limit special interest groups, as well as some of the powers individual corporations and organizations have, especially things like social media companies' ability to dictate the national dialogue by denying services and speech along political lines. We need to fight back when people try to push immoral and absurd BS through the system to us and to our children and expect us to live with it. Which I'm sure you already do. We need to show that free speech can and will banish the darkness of lies, misinformation, and hyper partisan media. For this to happen, we need to be engaged, and hungrier than our opponents in their mad frenzy. But just making the national system smaller and expecting a different result is probably not going to work, from my perspective. And again, I think it's a lot of pain and hurt for potentially no or negative gain. Yes, suffering builds character in a way, or at least toughness, but that doesn't mean it's an end unto itself or necessarily will end in a better system. Plenty of places have suffered plenty and have emerged worse than not only our admittedly flawed system, but also when they started. I don't think it's the best of our options, and might not be even if it were that or nothing. Though I'm perhaps not as sure on that latter point.

  The closer your "leaders" are to you the more they are a part of your community, they are your neighbors.  Living far, far away in a hall of uber power tends to cause those "leaders" to lose sight of their real responsibilities, duties, and obligations.  I rather live with 1000 lions as friends, neighbors and countrymen than 100000000000 sheep.    I do agree engagement has to go along with reduction of size and power.   But that shit eating monster needs a reduction in size, power, and reach.

[KindaMeh]

That said, elite capture is very real, as you note, and taking back the halls of power won't be easy. We need to limit special interest groups, as well as some of the powers individual corporations and organizations have, especially things like social media companies' ability to dictate the national dialogue by denying services and speech along political lines. We need to fight back when people try to push immoral and absurd BS through the system to us and to our children and expect us to live with it. Which I'm sure you already do. We need to show that free speech can and will banish the darkness of lies, misinformation, and hyper partisan media. For this to happen, we need to be engaged, and hungrier than our opponents in their mad frenzy. But just making the national system smaller and expecting a different result is probably not going to work, from my perspective. And again, I think it's a lot of pain and hurt for potentially no or negative gain. Yes, suffering builds character in a way, or at least toughness, but that doesn't mean it's an end unto itself or necessarily will end in a better system. Plenty of places have suffered plenty and have emerged worse than not only our admittedly flawed system, but also when they started. I don't think it's the best of our options, and might not be even if it were that or nothing. Though I'm perhaps not as sure on that latter point.

  The closer your "leaders" are to you the more they are a part of your community, they are your neighbors.  Living far, far away in a hall of uber power tends to cause those "leaders" to lose sight of their real responsibilities, duties, and obligations.  I rather live with 1000 lions as friends, neighbors and countrymen than 100000000000 sheep.    I do agree engagement has to go along with reduction of size and power.   But that shit eating monster needs a reduction in size, power, and reach.

Localizing the powers of government and limiting the boundless discretionary powers at the top is seldom a terrible idea these days. Especially when it helps boost engagement. With that I would definitely have to agree.

[jhkim]

  The closer your "leaders" are to you the more they are a part of your community, they are your neighbors.  Living far, far away in a hall of uber power tends to cause those "leaders" to lose sight of their real responsibilities, duties, and obligations.  I rather live with 1000 lions as friends, neighbors and countrymen than 100000000000 sheep.    I do agree engagement has to go along with reduction of size and power.   But that shit eating monster needs a reduction in size, power, and reach.

Localizing the powers of government and limiting the boundless discretionary powers at the top is seldom a terrible idea these days. Especially when it helps boost engagement. With that I would definitely have to agree.

Limiting and localizing are different and often contradictory things. I've never lived in a small country, but I have a number of friends from small countries like Ireland, Israel, Latvia, and Jamaica. I feel that small local governments tend to be *more* intrusive into people's lives than larger federal government. For me personally, it's the local government that imposes more specific and intrusive laws like what I am allowed to grow in my lawn, or what shops can be beside other shops, etc.

If the U.S. were to balkanize, I think we'd end up with more authoritarian laws -- imposing more left-leaning authoritarian laws in left-leaning areas, and more right-leaning authoritarian laws in right-leaning areas.

I'm all for limiting the power of government to intrude on people's lives, but I don't think that balkanizing will help that.

[3catcircus]

So SCOTUS just struck down NY's gun law requiring you to show a need for concealed carry.  This affects several other states as well.  The left is predictably "outraged" by the ruling.

What's the possibility that SCOTUS ruled that way*specifically* because those same leftists have been trampling their front lawns and trying to assassinate them over Roe v. Wade while state and federal government did pretty much nothing to protect them?  What's the possibility they rules this way to proactively counteract any assholery in the upcoming gun bill being voted on by the Senate?

Is this a bellwether ruling indicating that common sense is coming back into fashion, or will leftist governments double down on stupid?

[KindaMeh]

  The closer your "leaders" are to you the more they are a part of your community, they are your neighbors.  Living far, far away in a hall of uber power tends to cause those "leaders" to lose sight of their real responsibilities, duties, and obligations.  I rather live with 1000 lions as friends, neighbors and countrymen than 100000000000 sheep.    I do agree engagement has to go along with reduction of size and power.   But that shit eating monster needs a reduction in size, power, and reach.

Localizing the powers of government and limiting the boundless discretionary powers at the top is seldom a terrible idea these days. Especially when it helps boost engagement. With that I would definitely have to agree.

Limiting and localizing are different and often contradictory things. I've never lived in a small country, but I have a number of friends from small countries like Ireland, Israel, Latvia, and Jamaica. I feel that small local governments tend to be *more* intrusive into people's lives than larger federal government. For me personally, it's the local government that imposes more specific and intrusive laws like what I am allowed to grow in my lawn, or what shops can be beside other shops, etc.

If the U.S. were to balkanize, I think we'd end up with more authoritarian laws -- imposing more left-leaning authoritarian laws in left-leaning areas, and more right-leaning authoritarian laws in right-leaning areas.

I'm all for limiting the power of government to intrude on people's lives, but I don't think that balkanizing will help that.

So, I was more advocating for localized powers being separate from federal powers and having some basic clout, and limiting federal overreach which often runs roughshod over the needs and wants of a community, than balkanization. Which I think is not presently much of a solution compared to our other options, and possibly even compared to nothing much at all, given the risk involved and uncertainty of rewards.

Basically, the idea that the founding fathers in their (admittedly limited) wisdom gave states and localities rights and powers for a reason. In part because being closer to a problem or community can at times help you better solve or understand it. Also, I think the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, while it should not be allowed to escalate to authoritarian local trampling of constitutional rights and the like, is one of the positives to local communities being allowed to self-segregate politically and where applicable people being able to vote with their feet. It may not be quite as smooth as everyone marching in one direction dictated by the national majority, but I think it lets us try things out and see the results.

That said, it does sound like you know more about the governments of some smaller nations than I do, to be honest. Hopefully giving local people the power to deal with local problems does not necessarily mean having to deal with a statistical pushback trying to make us give up our rights or national unity. Still, if it's something to be concerned with, maybe we should be looking into ways to limit state and local levels in their powers, and not just the top.

[rgalex]

So SCOTUS just struck down NY's gun law requiring you to show a need for concealed carry.  This affects several other states as well.  The left is predictably "outraged" by the ruling.

What's the possibility that SCOTUS ruled that way*specifically* because those same leftists have been trampling their front lawns and trying to assassinate them over Roe v. Wade while state and federal government did pretty much nothing to protect them?  What's the possibility they rules this way to proactively counteract any assholery in the upcoming gun bill being voted on by the Senate?

Is this a bellwether ruling indicating that common sense is coming back into fashion, or will leftist governments double down on stupid?

What's the possibility.... low.  I was kind of hoping they would go all the way and say needing a permit at all is an infringement, but Kavanaugh (who as you pointed out just had someone try and murder him) still sided with permits being ok as part of a state requirement.

[KindaMeh]

So SCOTUS just struck down NY's gun law requiring you to show a need for concealed carry.  This affects several other states as well.  The left is predictably "outraged" by the ruling.

What's the possibility that SCOTUS ruled that way*specifically* because those same leftists have been trampling their front lawns and trying to assassinate them over Roe v. Wade while state and federal government did pretty much nothing to protect them?  What's the possibility they rules this way to proactively counteract any assholery in the upcoming gun bill being voted on by the Senate?

Is this a bellwether ruling indicating that common sense is coming back into fashion, or will leftist governments double down on stupid?

I guess at least one of the benefits to having a national government with it's own proper Constitution, rather than balkanization, is that said national rights can be applied when States or localities don't have the political will to protect their own citizens from government infringements on said rights. Of course, the flip side being that the nation can infringe if not held to account by the Constitution and its guardians where local or state governments would not wish to tread. It still works though, so long as the Constitution is solid and its defenders honest and correct in their interpretation.

[oggsmash]

   Saying small countries can be fucked over and less free is a non point.  The USA was established by people who wanted a nation to be a certain way (leave the people alone as much as possible) and they wrote founding documents to establish that and limit government.  A movement on a small scale back to that is fine.  Other small nations did not have the same founding stock/ideas/principles the USA had and has.   There is a reason true freedom of speech and no 2A exists in any other nation.  To assume smaller is more authoritarian is short sighted...now if it is a blue area for god damn certain it WILL be more authoritarian, it is a feature of being blue.  The current edition of red is not so big on authoritarianism or making war.  Fine by me.    The other reality is, if some aspects present more authoritarianism that aligns directly with shared beliefs and principles, so be it.  Red rules in red states, blue rules in blue states.  Everyone is happier, healthier and more productive.