The Case For Biden

@oralloy,

I would dearly love to see a candidate that was pro 2nd amendment and also pro choice. Fantasy, of course.

2 Replies

@roger,

Could you see any amendment of the 2nd Amendment?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Sure. Get that confusing militia business out of there.

Had to ask, didn't you?

2 Replies

@roger,

The militia is the reason why the Second Amendment protects our right to have military weapons though. If we remove that, we would be abandoning our right to have grenades and bazookas.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

You seem to trust your neighbor more than I trust mine.

1 Reply

@roger,

So is your priority simply trying to preserve the 2nd Amendment intact for eternity, or would you back a modern effort to redefine and resecure the relationship between citizens and firearms? It's the flintlock mentality of the framers that bothers me. I'm pretty sure that firearms are the only mechanical devices specifically mentioned in the document, and as material objects, produced, bought, and sold in the marketplace which have technically evolved over time they no longer function the way firearms did 200 years ago and their place in society is much different. Relying on the 2nd Amendment and making it the final word on the topic is like using a map of trails compiled by Daniel Boone to try to navigate the interstate highway system.

4 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

So is your priority simply trying to preserve the 2nd Amendment intact for eternity, or would you back a modern effort to redefine and resecure the relationship between citizens and firearms? It's the flintlock mentality of the framers that bothers me. I'm pretty sure that firearms are the only mechanical devices specifically mentioned in the document, and as material objects, produced, bought, and sold in the marketplace which have technically evolved over time they no longer function the way firearms did 200 years ago and their place in society is much different. Relying on the 2nd Amendment and making it the final word on the topic is like using a map of trails compiled by Daniel Boone to try to navigate the interstate highway system.

A more relevant issue in this context is whether the 2nd amendment should protect the right to lace illegal drugs with lethal concentrations of fentanyl in an effort to win the war on drugs.

I.e. should fentanyl be considered a lethal weapon, and should it be illegal to use it to stop illegal drug use by effectively booby-trapping the drugs themselves before they reach consumers?

The framers of the constitution clearly intended the citizenry to be armed and capable of fighting wars against oppressors, but what kind(s) of warfare would they have tolerated, and what form(s) of violence would they have rejected, even if those were deemed necessary to win against an oppressor?

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I'm pretty sure that firearms are the only mechanical devices specifically mentioned in the document,

Firearms weren't mentioned specifically. Arms can mean any military weapons. 1000 years in the past it meant spears. 1000 years in the future it could mean plasma rifles.

The printing press is another mechanical device where technology has advanced since the Constitution was written. The internet works quite differently from the way that an old-style printing press worked. Free speech remains the same I think.

hightor wrote:

and as material objects, produced, bought, and sold in the marketplace which have technically evolved over time they no longer function the way firearms did 200 years ago and their place in society is much different.

Back then people used them for hunting, private self defense, police work, and fighting in wars. How is their place in society different today?

hightor wrote:

Relying on the 2nd Amendment and making it the final word on the topic is like using a map of trails compiled by Daniel Boone to try to navigate the interstate highway system.

The nature of freedom and civil liberties will never change.

0 Replies

@hightor,

He's the only one the Trump campaign fears and only because he is a relative moderate. They want Warren or Sanders. I would prefer Biden because he is such a wreck, but I'm not running the Trump campaign.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I would dearly love to see a candidate that was pro 2nd amendment and also pro choice. Fantasy, of course.

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (at least for now - if the AOC's of the Democratic Party ever gain full power that may not be the case), but if I absolutely had to make a choice, I would choose to preserve the lives of innocent babies over defending my own.

1 Reply

@roger,

I trust my neighbors when things are good, but I would be a fool to do so if society broke down. Better to have a gun and never need it than to need it and not have it. (This is what I keep telling my wife!)

1 Reply

@hightor,

Flintlock mentality. So, where goes the first amendment? Literal soap boxes on street corners and hand powered printing presses. Goodbye teletype, radio, TV, not to mention internet.

I've seen you do much better.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

roger wrote:

I would dearly love to see a candidate that was pro 2nd amendment and also pro choice. Fantasy, of course.

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (at least for now - if the AOC's of the Democratic Party ever gain full power that may not be the case), but if I absolutely had to make a choice, I would choose to preserve the lives of innocent babies over defending my own.

Once you start talking "innocent babies" that conversation is over.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Better to have a gun and never need it than to need it and not have it.

Have you ever had the opportunity to test that theory?

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

So, where goes the first amendment?

The first amendment, and all the others, are fine. Unlike the right to bear arms, the right to free speech is not tagged to a mechanical device which has evolved over time to become more deadly and a civilian army that doesn't exist. Free speech is an abstraction. This is why the Supreme Court was able to conclude that political contributions are an example of "free speech". That's why we still mention "freedom of the press" even though "presses" are no longer the sole method of producing mass copy. The Courts have been able to apply the concept of free speech as communications technology has developed — I wonder what the framers would have thought of "fake news"?

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

The first amendment, and all the others, are fine.

Actually progressives are out to get all of our other civil liberties too.

But even if the rest of the Constitution was actually safe from you guys, violating just one specific civil liberty is still a massive atrocity.

hightor wrote:

Unlike the right to bear arms, the right to free speech is not tagged to a mechanical device which has evolved over time to become more deadly and a civilian army that doesn't exist.

All of our other rights can be illegitimately tied to ancient technology in the same manner that you seek to illegitimately tie the Second Amendment to ancient technology.

hightor wrote:

The Courts have been able to apply the concept of free speech as communications technology has developed

The courts have likewise been able to apply the Second Amendment to modern weapons.

The lesson here is clear. Anyone who wants America to remain free needs to vote for Trump and the Republicans. Democrats are out to destroy our freedom and abolish the Constitution.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

a mechanical device which has evolved over time to become more deadly and a civilian army that doesn't exist.

A couple of additional points:

The militia may no longer exist, but private self defense very much exists. So it isn't true that the Second Amendment is no longer serving some of its original purpose.

Increased deadliness is not a factor. If a gun is truly dangerous, then Strict Scrutiny will allow that gun to be regulated or even outlawed. You only come into conflict with the Second Amendment if you try to pass a regulation that you cannot justify with a good reason (or try to pass a law so draconian that it impedes self defense).

0 Replies

@roger,

Why because they are not innocent babies or because you don't want to think of them as such?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Thankfully no, but I'm not foolish enough to imagine the test will never come. People in post-Katrina New Orleans did as well as Korean shop owners during the LA riots.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

roger wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

roger wrote:

I would dearly love to see a candidate that was pro 2nd amendment and also pro choice. Fantasy, of course.

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (at least for now - if the AOC's of the Democratic Party ever gain full power that may not be the case), but if I absolutely had to make a choice, I would choose to preserve the lives of innocent babies over defending my own.

Once you start talking "innocent babies" that conversation is over.

There! I made it nice and big so you could read it.

1 Reply

The Case For Biden

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know