Roe & Casey overturned.

[Horace]

I imagine they would want to regulate nuclear weapons, which in theory could come in the shape of a gun.

I probably just pulled a Godwin in the context of gun debates. Comparing to nuclear weapons. I’m such a noob.

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

The right for a gun is not absolute, and I do not think that the writers of the constitution meant that. OF course, since we cannot talk to them, impossible to say. Since they could not envision the weapons of today, who knows what their thoughts would be

The right for personal arms, in a sane person, is absolute. Period. No equivocation. Clear as day.

Start your discussion, keeping that in mind.

[Larry]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

The right for a gun is not absolute, and I do not think that the writers of the constitution meant that. OF course, since we cannot talk to them, impossible to say. Since they could not envision the weapons of today, who knows what their thoughts would be

Oh yes, the right to own and carry a gun IS absolute.

[Mik]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

The right for a gun is not absolute, and I do not think that the writers of the constitution meant that. OF course, since we cannot talk to them, impossible to say. Since they could not envision the weapons of today, who knows what their thoughts would be

No, we cannot. We can simply refer to what they wrote, which is unambiguous. And it is not for a lack of verbosity on their part. The constitutional convention produced a very specific document and framework. Every single piece of it was painstakingly hammered out.

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly @Larry I tink we will have to agree to disagree.

I just don't think that there are absolutes here. There are shades of gray.

For example:
*Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

What is excessive bail? $1 MM USD? If you are someone who has not savings, maybe $10000 is excessive? How can we have a $1MM bail for such a person? That seems to be against the constitution.

Do you guys think that any weapon should be legally able to be owned by anyone?

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@Jolly @Larry I tink we will have to agree to disagree.

I just don't think that there are absolutes here. There are shades of gray.

For example:
*Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

What is excessive bail? $1 MM USD? If you are someone who has not savings, maybe $10000 is excessive? How can we have a $1MM bail for such a person? That seems to be against the constitution.

Do you guys think that any weapon should be legally able to be owned by anyone?

Excessive bail gets knocked down all the time. The biggest discussion right now, is the number of places requiring very little or no bail, and the subsequent crime spikes.

And what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? The Founders were very familiar with capital punishment and had no problem with it. They did have a problem with crucifixion, impalement, being drawn and quartered, etc.

Should any weapon be owned by anyone? Remember, the Founders were rooted in a belief system that men had a right to self-defense. That self-defense extended to property and family. Self-defense has always involved the personal weapons of the day. Historically speaking, that would be long guns, handguns and edged weapons.

So yes, if you wish to have an AR-15, a Glock, a shotgun or a Bowie knife and are a law-abiding citizen without a felony conviction, have at it.

If you wish to possess a. 50 caliber BMG atop a Sherman tank with a 76mm main gun, and you can pass a FBI background check, be my guest.

Most Americans will do none of the latter and probably a majority will never own more than one personal weapon. But it's not the government's business to restrict personal weapons for most citizens.

[Larry]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@Jolly @Larry I tink we will have to agree to disagree.

I just don't think that there are absolutes here. There are shades of gray.

For example:
*Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

What is excessive bail? $1 MM USD? If you are someone who has not savings, maybe $10000 is excessive? How can we have a $1MM bail for such a person? That seems to be against the constitution.

Do you guys think that any weapon should be legally able to be owned by anyone?

I'm aware what you think. But just because you think it doesn't make what you think correct. He Constitution is very clear - "Shall not be infringed". End. Of. Story. If you want to wander around looking for "shades of grey" the word "except" would need to be in that statement. It is not. Therefore, what you think simply doesn't matter. It says what it says "SHALL NOT be infringed."

It would help if you understood what the Constution was created for, and why. It is obvious to me that you do not.we were not "given" the right to bear arms by the Constitution.our right to bear arms existed already. After the Constitution was enacted into law, it was amended to clarify certain points, in this case, the right to own guns. We already had that right, it was a NATURAL RIGHT - the people wanted the Constitution amended to make that clear, not to "grant"us the right. The key words to the entire amendment are "Shall not be infringed".

N6n grey area. No "except". Just pure, unadulterated "before you guys came up with this new government we had a NATURAL RIGHT to own and possess any weapon we wanted to, and we won't agree to this new Constitution if you try to place a limit on that, PERIOD. So write it out clearly in case somewhere down the line someone pops up claiming they can limit our access to guns"

This means that if I want to go out any buy a Sherman tank, that is my right. Yes, I'm aware that over the years the leftwing "shades of grey" bull shit has chipped away at our rights and a lot of people have the view that the Constitution means whatever you happen to want it to mean. But the fact is, I have the natural right to buy a Sherman tank, and government does not have a right to stop me.

[jon-nyc]

They say that libertarian meetups eventually devolve into arguments over whether people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

[Jolly]

Dunno.

I do think the person was right, who said that the Constitution is a fence. Not to keep people out, but to keep the government in.

[George K]

Posted by a "friend" on FB:

I was that close to saying "Well, you didn't object in 1972, did you?"

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Posted by a "friend" on FB:

I was that close to saying "Well, you didn't object in 1972, did you?"

Were they a biologist?

Beyond that, do we now need man laws made by men for men? Women laws made by women for women? How about white laws and black laws?

[George K]

@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Were they a biologist?

A nurse...

[Aqua Letifer]

@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Were they a biologist?

A nurse...

If the abortion doc's a male, their argument kinda crumbles.

[Copper]

If the baby killed is male, their argument kinda crumbles.

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

Posted by a "friend" on FB:

I was that close to saying "Well, you didn't object in 1972, did you?"

Did the nurse object last year when men passed laws that she had to take a vaccine into her body to keep her job?

Does she make the same protest regarding prostitution laws? It’s her body… Drugs? Seatbelts?

Of course, there’s also the whole point that women are lawmakers too. My bet is she also wishes that men passed laws about her body in 2009…

[Mik]

The responses to the decision have been fraught with sloppy thinking and Ill considered “points”.

[Copper]

It is simple.

It's not about a woman's body, it is about murder.

This is one of the top 10 laws of all time.

[Axtremus]

Profile of the most likely abortion patient:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html

THE TYPICAL PATIENT ...
Is Already a Mother.
Is in Her Late 20s.
Attended Some College.
Has a Low Income.
Is Unmarried.
Is in Her First 6 Weeks of Pregnancy.
Is Having Her First Abortion.
Lives in a Blue State.

[jon-nyc]

Larry (and often Jolly) often suffer from is/ought confusion. Larry assumes that how he thinks the universe should be configured is how the universe is configured.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

And yet…. Time place and manner restrictions are allowed in each case.

[Jolly]

And the problem with some people is that they can stare at their navel long enough to confuse the rule and the exceptions.

Seriously, the Constitution works as well as it does, because it fairly simple and it errs on the side of federal government restriction.

We'd be better off and more free, if we just quit ceding power to the feds.