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? :confused:

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I see your first comment.

I'm sure a person reading the words can understand the disconnect between the two statements.

Correction - my second comment. My mistake. In it I write–

If you are seriously interested in discussion, throwing around "your side" is not really conducive to that, especially when the above is the only personal statement I have posited regarding second amendment rights.

I think there are clearly two sides in the debate, those in favor of light to no regulation and those in favor of heavy regulation or total ban. Actually, I don't think that. That's a pretty undeniable reality.

I apologize if I miscategorized you. I made the contextual assumptive leap that your post had some bearing on the topic of the thread and the present debate in it. If your criticisms are only applicable to the Mississippi decision, I'm not sure why it is here. That really should be a separate thread, if you are saying your statement has nothing to do with the topic and I am wrong to think that it did.

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.

I don't see it in such broad strokes, but I can respect your view on it.

I appreciate that–my comment was related to the aspect of interpreting the constitution, which is central to the swirling debates around these and many other issues in the US right now.

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

So because the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, and and all court rulings, that have nothing to do with guns or the 2nd, are on topic? I am wrong to have taken your words to be applicable to the subject of the thread, and also wrong to conclude that, if this deduction was wrong, that it is not about the topic of the thread? Seems strange it's both of these at the same time.

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.

None of these questions have anything to do with my comment.

Please explain.

You said:

Why? Aren't "rich old men" fair? Are women, or poor, young men, more fair? Assigning people into groups based on age, gender, race, or any other such attribute, and then painting that entire group and everyone in it with a broad brush, is sexism, or ageism, or racism, or just plain prejudice and bigotry.

You are making a derogatory comment about a certain age and gender group. If you don't like a decision made by a Neil Gorsuch or Sam Alito, try punching a hole in their argument. But why bring age and gender into it, as though those things are relevant?

A broad variety of perspectives from all different races, ages and genders leads to better outcomes. Almost all Fortune 500 companies, for example, have concluded this. Some still resist the concept.

I'm not sure why you keep referencing specific supreme court justices. My comment is not a criticism of any particular individuals nor of their work/beliefs/views. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it either.

You are free to disagree, but my view is that America would be a better place if decisions were more often made by people and groups comprising a more diverse range of (to quote you) "ages, genders, races" as well as other orientations/experiences.

If you are perfectly happy and satisfied with the state of America, then I can understand your not wanting to change anything in this regard.

Vax "mandates" were not forcing someone to do something against their will. It was the definition of "choice". Get a vaccine to protect society at large, or find another job, just not on the government teat.

I also am very happy the Supreme Court consists of people from multiple races and both genders. Clarence Thomas' take down of Dred Scott in this decision and his declaration that rights apply to all Americans is particularly resonant.

Or is this not the diversity we like, because he has the wrong opinion?

Of course, when valid arguments can no longer be found, it is the response to try and make it about race and gender, even though it was authored by an African-American male and a woman's addition to the Court is what made it a clear majority (many of us are surprised that Roberts signed on with this).

No one said the Supreme Court isn’t currently diverse, and it takes half a brain to argue it is, although it is politically motivated and that has almost always been the case. It’s the state legislatures in states that will now be deciding what women/women of color can and cannot do with their bodies that are historically underrepresented.

Side note: accused sexual abusers as the paragon of conservative virtue is fairly ironic.

Oh, it again has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and we are not to assign the claims made about the groups and people involved in the 2A issue to be about anything to do with the topic, and restricted to the off-topic topic only. Go make an Abortion thread. It sincerely would be very interesting and we probably agree more there. This thread is not about abortion, racial politics, and gender debate.

Women/women of color is a funny way of saying "women".

Accused = guilty. That sounds right.

Accused of something for the first time, that supposedly happened 35 years prior. The accusers OWN WITNESSES said it wasn't Kavanaugh. But never mind, insinuate he was guilty. The same thing was done to Clarence Thomas.
That's how some people work.

Meanwhile, the law of the land (for those of us who care) says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I guess that's just another law, like the 2nd Amendment, that we can ignore when convenient.

That was written purposefully. They deserve special recognition because they have too often been forgotten. Figured I’d see if you took issue with it.

I bet you think Deshaun Watson did it though.

Of course I do. It's absurd. "Women" is not a racial term, it includes women of all races. Can we address the actual topic instead of your gender agenda?

Why? Be clear with your insinuation.

Lots of evidence against him. Innocent until proven guilty tends to be selectively used to defend people who you like or with whom you side. Carrying it as a mantra to replace your own reasonable thoughts about whether a person did something or not is pretty silly. The law has technicalities - facts do not.

There’s lots of evidence against Kavanaugh and Thomas? Where? They were able to produce essentially none but a politically convenient claim.

Nobody has made a contradiction or double standard. You’re just accusing him of it because of an assumption you’ve made up?

None of which has anything to do with the subject of the thread.

To circulate back to the subject of the thread, I think there are very few restrictions that will pass Sup Ct review for the foreseeable future so the debate seems more theoretical than anything else. I think that’s bad, you likely think that’s good. That’s about where we are.

Regarding schools, there are common sense proposals out there, like locking all side doors and only having one main entrance open, and that with one or two armed guards and metal detectors (same type of setup as airports have when people board airplanes.)

Do a little research to see who's been proposing such solutions, and who has been opposing them.

If common sense is not common, perhaps another term is more appropriate.

When I use the term "common sense" I am referring to clear thinking, logical people. You are correct, those people are not as common as I wish.

Do you think that proposal - single entry/exit to schools (excluding fire emergency exits of course) and metal detectors and armed guards - would be a good idea? Do you think it's a good policy at airports?

Again I urge you and anyone else to take a couple minutes to see who has been proposing, and who has been opposing, such measures.

That is not a world I want my kids to live in. We can do better. I also vehemently distrust the willingness of someone with a gun to take a bullet for kids that are not his or her own. Would rather do our best to have less guns and bullets near kids in the first place.

None of those ideas are without merit. They do pose some challenges, however. Please take the following for what it is; clearly we are on opposite sides on some issues, but, as I pointed out to Greg earlier, I am a second amendment supporter.

The single-entry approach is currently in widespread use as I understand it, and IIRC the Uvalde school even had this. One issue with metal detectors (in schools and airports) is that it slows down the process of getting in, to the point where, much like flying, students would end up having to get there much earlier than unusual and stand in a long line. I know I hate that aspect of flying, and I don't love the idea of making that a part of every child's school day. Putting more guns in schools may end up working in some ways or some situations, but generally I think fewer guns in schools tends to be better. I suppose we'd all get used to it eventually (as we have with more armed guards/dogs at airports, transit hubs, etc.) but I miss the pre-9/11 days in that aspect.

Is this sarcasm or are you being serious?

Hope-cine should be the name, not vaccine, especially when they changed the definition of it. ;)
https://twitter.com/plmilligan1968/s...not-science%2F

Are you suggesting when a mass shooting begins, police should not be called in to stop it? I mean, they would be bringing guns into the school and besides, you wouldn't trust them to be of help anyway.

Why would I suggest that? When police roll in they have strength in numbers. Or at least they should - in Texas they dropped the ball it seems. It’s the effectiveness of an armed person at the school that I think you overestimate.

It works at airports, and some government buildings to protect our esteemed politicians. But you don't want kids to have the same protection.

You say you want "fewer guns in schools" as though there's little difference who has those guns. I want fewer guns in the hands of mass murderers, but since it is usually rather difficult to predict who and when that will happen, I like the idea of guns in the hands of law enforcement. This is something I wish we could agree was "common sense" but you are proof it isn't common.

The shooter at Uvalde got in through a side door.

So, are you saying you oppose having armed guards in schools (because you want fewer guns in schools) UNLESS there are 15 or 20 of them so they have strength in numbers?

Thankfully it ended up working at the Capitol. God bless those armed officers.

So…. You’re saying it works but you don’t want to consider it because it’s not banning or de facto banning guns?

Are you actually a pro-2A plant to make the banners look bad?

Big difference between having guns defend a government building and planting them at a school where my kids go. Don’t want kids to have to live their lives around armed guards and metal detectors. Think for a second. Thanks in advance!

Ask the parents of the murdered kids how THEY feel about it.

I’m sorry, I’ve had it wrong this whole time. You’ve got to just be trolling. Random topic switches, making the worst and most inconsistent argument at every turn, talking exactly how right wingers parody their opposition. This has to be a joke. Well done.

As you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth in order to argue with your straw man, I'll end this exchange. I should have realized that attempting to communicate with you was going to be a fruitless task when you (without sarcasm, apparently) decried my opinion that too many decisions are being made by groups of old rich men as "sexist" and then went on shortly thereafter to imply that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were full of shit. You just can't make this stuff up.

It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you.

Can’t make it up. Ford sure did though. There’s never been a case with less evidence than hers.

They don’t want guns near their kids. You do.

Yeah, you’re right, just trolling. Don’t think these issues are important. Have fun with your guns. I started out earlier in this thread thinking people should find a way to improve the situation. You and your cohort’s straw men arguments make me understand why there’s no ability to find common ground. Have a good one.

It was Christine Blasey Ford's OWN WITNESSES that said she was mistaken. I believed them.

I don't know if Anita Hill was telling the truth or not.

What I take issue with is the notion that you need a woman to provide "the female" point of view, or you need an Asian person to provide "the Asian" point of view. Because, if you mostly have "old rich men" you will only have the "old rich man" point of view. It is simplistic.

I'm all for diversity because it is fair, and the most qualified people should always be the best choices regardless of any attribute like gender, race, hat size, weight, etc.

Your opposition to protecting kids in schools with metal (gun) detectors and armed guards tells me all I need to know about your "concern" for the kids. You only want armed law enforcement on scene after the kids have begun to get killed.