Gun ownership poll

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

You forgot to mention specifically WHO did this and WHO was responsible for it.

Irrelevant. The government does shitty stuff every day; the guardians (courts) are supposed to put a stop to it. Instead. the Supreme Court approved it. They are the true villains of the internment story because they failed to be the check on governmental overreach. As the recent Dobbs case makes crystal clear, all these 'rights' can be reconfigured whenever five idiots decide they want to do it.

[ALR-bishop]

“Sometimes you just have to march right in and demand all your rights. Even if you are not sure what your rights are, or even who you are talking to. And when you leave, slam the door”….. Jack Handey

[G1911]

While I have favored a right to abortion personally (I must concede the increasing push for "after-birth abortion" that appears to be simply first degree murder and my states radical legislation makes me start to re-examine some of my thinking on having limits), I am unable to figure how the 14th amendment provides an unlimited right to abortion through a certain trimester. Try as I might, as I have read it over and over again through my life, I am never able to find this in the document whatsoever. This certainly would be absolutely shocking to its authors. Many on the left have recognized over the last five decades that this ruling was not exactly on solid ground, to say the least. The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that this issue defaults to the states and the people under the 10th amendment does not appear to be a random decision by five assholes, but a 6-3 ruling to actually use the document they are supposed to be using, as was the decision around the same time that the 2nd cannot be ignored. They have ignored this document many times, such as to allow the internment, but Dobbs is not an example of this. One should never mistake something they don't like with being wrong.

[clydepepper]

Though I certainly do not want to get involved in the original discussion, I feel compelled to ask this one question:


Why are 'radicals' only labeled as such when coming from one end of the 'spectrum'?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Though I certainly do not want to get involved in the original discussion, I feel compelled to ask this one question:


Why are 'radicals' only labeled as such when coming from one end of the 'spectrum'?

Depending where you get your news (or "news" if you prefer that) it is possible to read about "radicals" like - for example - AOC on the one hand, or Marjorie Taylor Greene on the other...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Though I certainly do not want to get involved in the original discussion, I feel compelled to ask this one question:


Why are 'radicals' only labeled as such when coming from one end of the 'spectrum'?

I do not think this is true. Each side labels the other sides more extreme takes, or the ones they dislike the most even though that is incorrect usage, as radical. Read the propaganda from each party and you will see this.

I am stuck in the middle with some very conservative (I do not think the state should steal half my money and I like the Constitution as actually written) and deeply left (I’m fine with abortion, I am in favor of universal health care, I am young enough to still be a little bitter about the police harassing young people for being young people in public) views. Both the traditional sides have some radical views.

Some of California’s laws are pretty radical. I’ll stand by that. They tend to go as far to one side in a uniparty state as possible. That seems to meet the dictionary.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not think this is true. Each side labels the other sides more extreme takes, or the ones they dislike the most even though that is incorrect usage, as radical. Read the propaganda from each party and you will see this.

I am stuck in the middle with some very conservative (I do not think the state should steal half my money and I like the Constitution as actually written) and deeply left (I’m fine with abortion, I am in favor of universal health care, I am young enough to still be a little bitter about the police harassing young people for being young people in public) views. Both the traditional sides have some radical views.

Some of California’s laws are pretty radical. I’ll stand by that. They tend to go as far to one side in a uniparty state as possible. That seems to meet the dictionary.

Greg- it sounds like we have a lot of common ground- I wish everyone would understand that...it's a shame that those on the extreme are ALWAYS the loudest...and are ALWAYS provided a mic.

Again- IMO: DOGS are far better people than people are.

[Carter08]

I think one thing people could try to do is understand why the other side is so “extreme” in their views. I tend to support abortion rights. Fully understand why those opposed to it are extremely opposed to it though and won’t vilify them for it - they consider it murder.

[G1911]

Now we can all agree about the dogs, they remain adorable no matter what else they do