Gun control debate (merged)

[Orangeslice13]

waaaaaaaaa!!!

FYP

 

[hog88]

That's an absurd take also.
You could apply that "logic" to all laws.

It should be applied to all laws.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You think wrong. A perfect example was the assault weapons ban, nothing but cosmetics.

Actually, that’s why the ban went away.
It was tried and proved that it changed nothing

 

[InVOLuntary]

No. Timothy Jenkins.

SO existing laws worked in that case. Sounds like we don't need anymore laws.

 

[Grand Vol]

Actually, that’s why the ban went away.
It was tried and proved that it changed nothing

The answer is always "we didn't give it enough time!"

Not even realizing it's futile at this point.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Two people have said you’re wrong and provided a technology means to support their stance. Your support for your stance thus far in reply is “Nuh uh!”.

Once a 3D program is generated and in circulation people will churn these things out with ease.

The 9th ruled already that banned magazine based on the number it holds is unconstitutional.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The 9th ruled already that banned magazine based on the number it holds is unconstitutional.

Wasn’t aware of that ruling thanks.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The 9th ruled already that banned magazine based on the number it holds is unconstitutional.

And….New York is being challenged on that decision. Now New York gets to decide if they’re going to comply or fight it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Wasn’t aware of that ruling thanks.

Actually there’s more too it. they reversed recently so the next up is new York and SCOTUS

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...lds-large-capacity-gun-magazine-ban?_amp=true

 

[Orangeslice13]

Think about that ruling.
“The government can take away your rights if it’s for the greater good.” How do we define the “greater good”?

Kinda reminds me of the quote “those who sacrifice freedom for safety will have neither “. Anyone know who said that?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Consistency is important.
I absolutely think the people writing laws should be educated on the subject. And speaking of…
The difference being that the 2a is specifically about firearms. There’s no reproductive amendment. Either that should be kicked back to the states or the Congress should do it’s job and add an amendment to the constitution.
Pretty simple really.

Except that it is not. Personally, I believe the constitution and its amendments are written in such a way as to support multiple interpretations and adaptations. I see it as part of the genius of that document.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Except that it is not. Personally, I believe the constitution and its amendments are written in such a way as to support multiple interpretations and adaptations. I see it as part of the genius of that document.

If you want abortion included then amended it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

@ClearwaterVol
For the record I’m personally opposed to abortion. But I don’t believe that you can legislate morality. And I don’t think I get to impose my will on others. That’s what laws are for. And laws should reflect their community unless it’s specifically outlined in the federal constitution. It looks like SCOTUS agrees with me. That’s the beauty of states rights. If you don’t like the laws where you live then work to change them or move.

 

[AshG]

Except that it is not. Personally, I believe the constitution and its amendments are written in such a way as to support multiple interpretations and adaptations. I see it as part of the genius of that document.

You have to look at the Constitution the same way a Fundamentalist looks at the KJV. Every jot, dot, and tittle exists for a reason and can only be seen one way.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You have to look at the Constitution the same way a Fundamentalist looks at the KJV. Every jot, dot, and tittle exists for a reason and can only be seen one way.

I wasn’t aware that the KJV had provisions for changing it if needed. That is interesting

 

[ClearwaterVol]

If you want abortion included then amended it.

It was included as per the Roe v. Wade court and numerous challenges prior to this one.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You have to look at the Constitution the same way a Fundamentalist looks at the KJV. Every jot, dot, and tittle exists for a reason and can only be seen one way.

Except that is never the case.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It was included as per the Roe v. Wade court and numerous challenges prior to this one.

And that incorrect decision is about to be kicked.
If you don’t like it the amend the constitution.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

And that incorrect decision is about to be kicked.

Again, you make it sound simple, but a great many legal scholars disagree.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Again, you make it sound simple, but a great many legal scholars disagree.

It is that simple. Amend the constitution and it removes the argument. Of course those legal scholars like to argue….that’s why they want it your way.

 

[luthervol]

What Luther said is finally starting to resonate with me. It just took me a little longer than most.

Don't beat yourself over it. People function and process at different rates; and your rate is just as special and unique as anyone else's.

 

[luthervol]

The 9th ruled already that banned magazine based on the number it holds is unconstitutional.

Curious if courts ever change or rethink previous rulings?

 

[C-south]

It always cracks me up when someone uses the "so criminals do not follow laws?" schtick as if it makes a point.
I think it is common knowledge that criminals do not follow all laws.....some, but not all.
I would go out on a limb and say that none of us follow all laws.......most, but not all.

It's beyond ridiculous to think those facts negate the necessity and benefits of laws.

It’s even more ridiculous to think making new laws to punish law abiding citizens is the answer to preventing criminals from committing crimes.

 

[AshG]

I don't believe we'll ever see another constitutional amendment. We'll have another civil war before we reach the point where we can see past our differences and take unified action to promote the general welfare.

 

[luthervol]

Think about that ruling.
“The government can take away your rights if it’s for the greater good.” How do we define the “greater good”?

Kinda reminds me of the quote “those who sacrifice freedom for safety will have neither “. Anyone know who said that?

No one ever said that as far as I know. Maybe you're just accidently misquoting.