Gun control debate (merged)

#19,753
#19,753
luthervol said:
I agree that it was an overreaction and that the additional safety and security provided is far outweighed by the inconveniences to the law abiding.

Which would not be the case with rational and reasonable gun laws and regulations.
Click to expand...
hog88 said:
And stated that it was worth inconveniencing the law abiding.
Click to expand...
I didn't word it well, but I was agreeing with you.

The added inconveniences to the law abiding citizen far outweigh any increase in safety and security.
A little inconvenience for greatly increased safety and security makes sense, but that is not the case here.
 
#19,754
#19,754
OrangeTsar said:
If the Supreme Court rules the we it is expected to, then there IS no longer my recognized constitutional right to n abortion so your argument becomes moot.
Click to expand...
True. That's why overturning Roe v Wade would be such a horrible idea.
You would be taking away what the majority believe to be a constitutional right, and one that has been recognized as such in multiple rulings for 50+ years.
 
#19,755
#19,755
Grand Vol said:
I really wish I could go back in time and let the Founding Fathers know to write the 2nd as if they were talking to a 3 year old...

Of course, even liberals aren't on that level.
Click to expand...
I first was first exposed to the Constitution in middle school nd it made Perfect Sense. It ws written not for lawyers but for average citizens. The founders would be dismayed beyond belief with our modern view that only a special priesthood of lifetime appointed elites are qualified to tell us what it means
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#19,756
#19,756
OrangeTsar said:
Technically the decision would be that there never really was such a right and that Roe was incorrectly decided, so no rights are actually lost s they never really existed in the first place
Click to expand...
And if a court 10 years from now rules that overturning Roe v Wade was wrong and that abortion was indeed a constitutional right, would that then mean that this upcoming ruling would have stripped individuals of a constitutional right?
 
#19,758
#19,758
Grand Vol said:
I really wish I could go back in time and let the Founding Fathers know to write the 2nd as if they were talking to a 3 year old...

Of course, even liberals aren't on that level.
Click to expand...
You and me both. Because they would rewrite it in a way that is nothing similar to the way it is currently being interpreted.
 
#19,759
#19,759
luthervol said:
And if a court 10 years from now rules that overturning Roe v Wade was wrong and that abortion was indeed a constitutional right, would that then mean that this upcoming ruling would have stripped individuals of a constitutional right?
Click to expand...
The Court needs to STOP ruling on it all together. It is a political question to be left to the legislatures of the various states as the tenth Amendment makes clear
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, StarRaider and hog88
#19,761
#19,761
OrangeTsar said:
The Court needs to STOP ruling on it all together. It is a political question to be left to the legislatures of the various states as the tenth Amendment makes clear
Click to expand...
They should have stopped after Roe v Wade. If you think that them overturning Roe v Wade is an ending point, you're delusional.
Unless of course every state recognizes the right of a woman to have an abortion.
 
#19,763
#19,763
luthervol said:
They should have stopped after Roe v Wade. If you think that them overturning Roe v Wade is an ending point, you're delusional.
Unless of course every state recognizes the right of a woman to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you oppose states setting there own rules for abortion but celebrate states infringing on the 2A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, CagleMtnVol, mr.checkerboards and 2 others
#19,765
#19,765
hog88 said:
Interesting that you oppose states setting there own rules for abortion but celebrate states infringing on the 2A.
Click to expand...
I would be happy if some gun laws and regulations were established at the federal level.
What's even more interesting is your love for states setting their own rules until it's a rule you think is wrong.
 
#19,766
#19,766
Orangeslice13 said:
Exactly.
If you don’t like the laws and rules don’t go there.
The same thing can be said for any number of issues.
Imagine being in New York and you’re not allowed to carry a pistol to defend yourself and some ******* walks into the grocery store and starts shooting.

Should the state of New York be responsible for all the deaths because they failed to provide the protection they took away from those who died ?
Click to expand...
VolStrom said:
What a crappy analogy. Abortion involves taking another life, and if the state you live in doesn't allow it, vote it out or vote with your feet and leave.
Click to expand...
So you think that the women who make the decision not to go through with a pregnancy (a majority of the time for financial reasons) should be forced to come up with the finances to move (probably away from family) because of some imaginary, arbitrary line? That stance isn’t based in practicality, it’s based on your emotion.

What about doctors that practice in multiple states? Healthcare systems that operate in multiple states? Patients whose insurance doesn’t cross state lines? And on and on…Ever consider any of this? Probably not. You probably don’t care, wrapped up in your emotion.

The simple solution is to keep it a choice. If you believe abortion is taking a life, then employ that practice in your personal life, preach it to your loved ones and whoever will listen. For everyone else that doesn’t believe it’s taking a life, stop trying to legislate your belief system on people who disagree with you.
 
#19,767
#19,767
luthervol said:
Not sure what you are getting at.
My point was simple (I think): I believe our nation would benefit from fewer gun sales rather than more.
I'm guessing some of you guys must believe that the more guns circulating through our country, the better.
Click to expand...
I believe the intent to removing guns and the result of removing them will do far more damage than having them.

Fewer freedoms takes away from everyone, even if that freedom is never expressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#19,768
#19,768
VolStrom said:
Just relating it to your comment about re-writing the 2nd amendment to make it similar to how it is interpreted.
Click to expand...
But my comment was that if the founding fathers rewrote the 2a with the perspective of how it is being interpreted 230 years later, it would look nothing like how it is being interpreted.
 
#19,769
#19,769
OHvol40 said:
So you think that the women who make the decision not to go through with a pregnancy (a majority of the time for financial reasons) should be forced to come up with the finances to move (probably away from family) because of some imaginary, arbitrary line? That stance isn’t based in practicality, it’s based on your emotion.

What about doctors that practice in multiple states? Healthcare systems that operate in multiple states? Patients whose insurance doesn’t cross state lines? And on and on…Ever consider any of this? Probably not. You probably don’t care, wrapped up in your emotion.

The simple solution is to keep it a choice. If you believe abortion is taking a life, then employ that practice in your personal life, preach it to your loved ones and whoever will listen. For everyone else that doesn’t believe it’s taking a life, stop trying to legislate your belief system on people who disagree with you.
Click to expand...
I'm not legislating a damn thing. I don't like it and I don't agree with it, and if you don't like my opinion, tough ****.
 
#19,770
#19,770
LouderVol said:
I believe the intent to removing guns and the result of removing them will do far more damage than having them.

Fewer freedoms takes away from everyone, even if that freedom is never expressed.
Click to expand...
I didn't say remove guns. I said decrease the rate of increase in new guns.
My hypothetical still added 15,000,000 new guns in 2022. That's hardly removing guns.
 
#19,774
#19,774
luthervol said:
I would be happy if some gun laws and regulations were established at the federal level.
What's even more interesting is your love for states setting their own rules until it's a rule you think is wrong.
Click to expand...

States cannot pass laws that are in violation of the BORs and apparently abortion isn't included in the BORs where the right to bear arms is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Weezy and Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top