an interesting conundrum

here's an interesting question regarding national and state's rights, regarding adherence to locally approved laws.
one of the biggest squawks lately, at least in the bay area, is that where state's recognize same sex marriage, those laws are supposed to be honored in every state. a classic example here are the same sex marraige laws in massa-twoshits, home of the two most liberal senators in congress. Mass. has sanctioned same sex marraige, and the community in question is now raising constitutional issues regarding other states not recognizing these unions.
well, what about states that grant concealed carry permits to gun owners? if you lived in vermont, and came to california, you can not carry concealed. what is the difference? if you want to make the arguement that we should honor only politically correct laws, let me remark that gay marraige is not addressed in the constitution. as a matter of fact, of the many issues that can be applied to this conundrum, gun ownership is the ONLY one covered by the constitution. so until they make it ok for me go down and get a concealed carry permit, being a law abiding citizen, with no criminal history, i don't want to hear about any state's rights vs. national rights bull dooky. same sex marraige rights for Mass. citizens married in that state, sure. but try carrying a permitted gun from georgia there. holy crap, you'd be in the slammer so fast your eyes would spin. and would the same folks yelling for their "rights" defend yours? like hell.

now having said that, i don't personally have anything against same sex marraige. hell, make everyone toe the line, i don't care. but what i do care about is the selective application of "fairness" as a political springboard for dissent. want pissed off? ask me why i don't have a concealed carry permit yet.