Paul is the newly elected senator from Kentucky who fancies himself a libertarian who doesn't want to cut Medicare funding because it would cut payments to doctors, which was Paul's job before he became a senator.
Anyway...What's his reasoning for voting against this bill?
The younger Mr. Paul said he thought it was a bad idea to point lasers at pilots, but “there are a lot of states that already have laws, and I think the states ought to take care of it.”
Why should the fact that something is a good idea mean the senate should make it policy? Only a big gov't anti-federalist would ask such a question.
Why even bother with federal law to begin with? If its a good idea states will take care of it. And if they don't well then that's their right. I mean, that is what's important here, state's rights. Who gives a shit if a pilot is blinded by a laser while flying over a state that doesn't have a bill outlawing such behavior on its books? It only matters if the state the pilot is flying over says it matters.
Who gives a shit if a gay couple wants to get married in Massachusetts? Who cares if New Mexico wants to allow all the illegal immigrants it can fit into its state so that they can have cheap labor? Who cares if a bunch of hippies in California want to smoke weed all day?
No need for the federal gov't to get involved in these affairs. If its a good idea states will take care of it. Because states know what's best for them. And other states don't care what they do because it has no effect on them.
I look forward to Mr. Paul proposing bills to end the federal war on drugs, the federal defense of marriage act, and federal immigration laws. After all, states ought to take care of that.