Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.

Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

the same people who think overturn roe v wade is ridiculous when abortion not a constitutional right are fine with overturning the constitution for gun control. Also same people fine with forcing a shot and lose your job if dont take covid shot are now saying its their body and no right to interfere with roe v wade even though they mostly live in states where nothing has changed and doesnt impact them at all..

plus interesting that people said you should get a shot because it impacts the life of other people...i would think abortion after a viable fetus also impats another life etc..

i not taking side here but just saying please be consistent..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

Thank you. It's almost like people will just ignore laws that get in their way, or something. Crazy. Imagine that. Who could have seen that coming?

The argument is self-defeating because it contradicts itself. The banners would be better served by recognizing the difference between what one thinks should be, and what actually is rather than conflating the two. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it too (pretending that banning essentially all post-civil war technology in the field, de facto total bans via a 10,000x tax, ignoring the 4th amendment as well, etc. are somehow actually in accord with the Constitution), a logical argument would be that while this is what the document, the highest source of US law, states, it should be changed. There is a process to do so, spelled out in the Constitution itself as the founders recognized times would change, and the people might need to reconsider things and consider new things. It's a loser of an argument to play the game the way they are playing it now - to pretend the 2nd and now the 4th also can just be ignored whenever politically expedient for political goals they agree with, without actually violating the amendments they are insisting be practically set aside. It's an argument without any logical merit. Make the case that the people should have no meaningful right to self-defense, that guns should not be allowed (or only allowed for pre-civil war technology), and that the Constitution should be amended through the legal process put in place to do exactly that to eliminate this liberty of the people. I would strongly disagree with it, but the argument would at least be internally consistent with itself instead of a series of absurd contradictions.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

The banners would be better served by recognizing the difference between what one thinks should be, and what actually is rather than conflating the two. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it too (pretending that banning essentially all post-civil war technology in the field, de facto total bans via a 10,000x tax, ignoring the 4th amendment as well, etc. are somehow actually in accord with the Constitution), a logical argument would be that while this is what the document, the highest source of US law, states, it should be changed.

It's worth noting that the reading of the 2nd amendment you describe ("having your cake and eating it too") is exactly the way that Alito's majority opinion interprets the 14th amendment in relation to the SC's recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. Because abortion was not considered "acceptable" in the 1860s (at the time the 14th was ratified), it cannot be acceptable now, despite it being settled law for nearly a half-century.

Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners).

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

It's worth noting that the reading of the 2nd amendment you describe ("having your cake and eating it too") is exactly the way that Alito's majority opinion interprets the 14th amendment in relation to the SC's recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. Because abortion was not considered "acceptable" in the 1860s (at the time the 14th was ratified), it cannot be acceptable now, despite it being settled law for nearly a half-century.

Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners).

Shhhhhh. The sound logic hurts my eyes.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

It's worth noting that the reading of the 2nd amendment you describe ("having your cake and eating it too") is exactly the way that Alito's majority opinion interprets the 14th amendment in relation to the SC's recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. Because abortion was not considered "acceptable" in the 1860s (at the time the 14th was ratified), it cannot be acceptable now, despite it being settled law for nearly a half-century.

Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners).

Can we have another thread for Roe? This thread is not about abortion even though it keeps being made the topic. Though it is quite amusing that you are apparently upset the court has upheld a right that actually and very directly is in the Constitution, and left to the people to decide an issue that is pretty clearly not. We should pretend abortion is in the constitution, but not bearing arms? Again, your side would be much better served by reading the document and working to change it or pass legislation (the actual process for creating new law and rights) rather than denying obvious reality.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

Can we have another thread for Roe? This thread is not about abortion even though it keeps being made the topic. Though it is quite amusing that you are apparently upset the court has upheld a right that actually and very directly is in the Constitution, and left to the people to decide an issue that is pretty clearly not. We should pretend abortion is in the constitution, but not bearing arms? Again, your side would be much better served by reading the document and working to change it or pass legislation (the actual process for creating new law and rights) rather than denying obvious reality.

You should go back and read my first comment in this thread. I'm not upset and you apparently don't know what "my side" is. I had regarded your contributions to this thread as helpful and reasonable until now, but you are simply treading into straw man territory here.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners).

Please, let's not bring those rich old men in the White House, forcing female federal employees to put vaccinations into their bodies under threat of losing their jobs, into this conversation. Or the same rich old men in government preventing women from legally putting heroin, cocaine, and certain other things into their own bodies. Or the rich old men in almost every state government, who won't allow a woman to legally make a living by offering herself as a prostitute.

Those "rich old men" just don't seem to think women own their own bodies. To be intellectually consistent (and obviously that is not your intention, but let's pretend it is,) vax mandates should be illegal, and all drug use and prostitution should be legal.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Please, let's not bring those rich old men in the White House, forcing female federal employees to put vaccinations into their bodies under threat of losing their jobs, into this conversation. Or the same rich old men in government preventing women from legally putting heroin, cocaine, and certain other things into their own bodies. Or the rich old men in almost every state government, who won't allow a woman to legally make a living by offering herself as a prostitute.

Those "rich old men" just don't seem to think women own their own bodies. To be intellectually consistent (and obviously that is not your intention, but let's pretend it is,) vax mandates should be illegal, and all drug use and prostitution should be legal.

These are all good and fair points. My opinion is that, generally, we have too many old rich men deciding things in this country.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

These are all good and fair points. My opinion is that, generally, we have too many old rich men deciding things in this country.

No doubt about it

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

These are all good and fair points. My opinion is that, generally, we have too many old rich men deciding things in this country.

Do all old men (for example, Breyer and Alito) think the same way? Do all women (for instance Barrett and Sotomayor) think the same way? Can't women be fair and clear thinking when it comes to the law, and vice versa?

Your comment is sexist.