|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The entire debate in this thread has been legislative and constitutional; not whether the right is natural born or god given. There’s plenty for you to mock, but mocking points literally no one has made is kind of stupid. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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.
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.. Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 06-25-2022 at 04:53 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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).
__________________
_ Successful transactions with: Natswin2019, ParachromBleu, Cmount76, theuclakid, tiger8mush, shammus, jcmtiger, oldjudge, coolshemp, joejo20, Blunder19, ibechillin33, t206kid, helfrich91, Dashcol, philliesfan, alaskapaul3, Natedog, Kris19, frankbmd, tonyo, Baseball Rarities, Thromdog, T2069bk, t206fix, jakebeckleyoldeagleeye, Casey2296, rdeversole, brianp-beme, seablaster, twalk, qed2190, Gorditadogg, LuckyLarry |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Shhhhhh. The sound logic hurts my eyes. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set. | Misunderestimated | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 1 | 01-02-2020 07:50 PM |
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership | Throttlesteer | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 49 | 08-14-2019 01:19 PM |
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items | Sean1125 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 08-29-2015 09:42 AM |
Ownership of old photographs | theantiquetiger | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 5 | 08-17-2011 01:43 PM |
Scan Ownership | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 12-14-2005 12:10 PM |