Gun control debate (merged)

#19,777
#19,777
luthervol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually you can read many of their thoughts after it was written. Your idea that they would favor less freedom shows you haven't completed that assignment
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol and Orangeslice13
#19,778
#19,778
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...
Even RGB saw the reasoning in Roe as flawed. The amazing thing is that it actually survived 50 years without being overturned
But still, the American Holocaust will have lasted more than 4x longer that the German one. But at a (dismembered) body count of 63 million, we have been by far the more efficient butchers for sure
 
#19,779
#19,779
luthervol said:
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.
Click to expand...
But your argument is that 6 million less guns would be better. I have asked for the math, and you havent provided. Why is 15 million better than 21 million?

You cant even set a total number. Because once we hit 15 million it would be 9 million is better, then 3, then 1 million, and then it would be an actual decrease. You cant provide any specifics. Either why it's bad, or what your number, or ratio is.
 
#19,781
#19,781
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...
Interesting take since the right to bear arms is an explicitly protected right by name in the Constitution while Abortion isn’t even mentioned. Are you sure you don’t have this whole thing bass ackwards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caculator
#19,788
#19,788
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’ve offered no opinion on the legality. Only my personal opinion and that you can’t legislate morals.
All that is irrelevant to it being a stats rights issue. All your hypothetical feelings arguments are also irrelevant to the law. it’s likely this is getting kicked back to the states as it should.
Get ready for it. It’s coming
 
#19,789
#19,789
Orangeslice13 said:
I’ve offered no opinion on the legality. Only my personal opinion and that you can’t legislate morals.
All that is irrelevant to it being a stats rights issue. All your hypothetical feelings arguments are also irrelevant to the law. it’s likely this is getting kicked back to the states as it should.
Get ready for it. It’s coming
Click to expand...
Which is practically really stupid, for the reasons mentioned amongst many more.
 
#19,790
#19,790
Orangeslice13 said:
I’ve offered no opinion on the legality. Only my personal opinion and that you can’t legislate morals.
All that is irrelevant to it being a stats rights issue. All your hypothetical feelings arguments are also irrelevant to the law. it’s likely this is getting kicked back to the states as it should.
Get ready for it. It’s coming
Click to expand...
I never understood the statement that „you can’t legislate morals.“
Isn’t all criminal law legislation of morality? We outlaw murder because it is immoral. We outlaw stealing because it is immoral. We outlaw rape because it is immoral. We outlaw…..
Well you get the idea
If we don’t legislate on morality, what exactly do we legislate on if not our sense of what is right and what is wrong?
Honest question
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#19,792
#19,792
OrangeTsar said:
I never understood the statement that „you can’t legislate morals.“
Isn’t all criminal law legislation of morality? We outlaw murder because it is immoral. We outlaw stealing because it is immoral. We outlaw rape because it is immoral. We outlaw…..
Well you get the idea
If we don’t legislate on morality, what exactly do we legislate on if not our sense of what is right and what is wrong?
Honest question
Click to expand...

The law is based in a value. In our case Judaism/Christian values. My statement that you can’t legislate morals simply means there is no common understanding of morals. I would be inclined to believe that abortion is murder and therefore immoral. I can argue from scripture….my favorite book…whatever to determine why I think it’s immoral. I don’t get to decide what is moral for everyone else. Clearly @luthervol or @OHvol40 would have a different reason for determining what is moral. They don’t get to decide what is moral for me. This is one reason I’m a believer in states rights. The laws should reflect the wishes of the community. It’s not physically possible for the federal government to pass laws that reflect the nation as a whole in most cases. Those cases should be constitutional amendments
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#19,793
#19,793
utvolpj said:
Actually you can read many of their thoughts after it was written. Your idea that they would favor less freedom shows you haven't completed that assignment
Click to expand...
Less freedom?
I think their position would be that rational and reasonable laws and regulations actually bring about more overall freedom.
 
#19,795
#19,795
luthervol said:
Less freedom?
I think their position would be that rational and reasonable laws and regulations actually bring about more overall freedom.
Click to expand...

Like some states legalizing drugs in spite of federal law while overdoses are at record highs? Hell the government is even providing drug paraphernalia to do it. Maybe it’s because dementia Joe’s son is a crackhead. Not really an apples to apples comparison considering the right to bear arms is a fundamental right and shooting heroine isn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#19,796
#19,796
luthervol said:
Less freedom?
I think their position would be that rational and reasonable laws and regulations actually bring about more overall freedom.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned earlier, they wrote a lot about their beliefs. If they believed in your nonsense they would have put in it the actual document they authored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and hog88
#19,797
#19,797
utvolpj said:
As I mentioned earlier, they wrote a lot about their beliefs. If they believed in your nonsense they would have put in it the actual document they authored.
Click to expand...
They did.........Federalist No. 1
An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
 
#19,798
#19,798
luthervol said:
They did.........Federalist No. 1
An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
Click to expand...
Finish this phrase from the actual doc:

shall not be....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#19,799
#19,799
OrangeTsar said:
Even RGB saw the reasoning in Roe as flawed. The amazing thing is that it actually survived 50 years without being overturned
But still, the American Holocaust will have lasted more than 4x longer that the German one. But at a (dismembered) body count of 63 million, we have been by far the more efficient butchers for sure
Click to expand...
You sound like an emotional, irrational, bleeding heart liberal. 😮
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top