Gun violence, the real red flags that no one talks about

[AlexBailey]

And yet abortion should be under Federal control?

Hmm. Can you think of a reason there should be a different set of abortion laws based on whether someone lives in a rural or urban setting?

Free range vs. caged?

 

[HisArpy]

Hmm. Can you think of a reason there should be a different set of abortion laws based on whether someone lives in a rural or urban setting?

Free range vs. caged?

Ok, let's begin with my actual position on abortion so you don't misunderstand. This also comes with a caveat that the issue is extremely complex and cannot be comprehensively covered in depth in one post on the internet by anyone. If anyone wishes to nitpick words and sentences rather than the concepts under discussion, please go play stupid troll elsewhere.

So, first:

I BELIEVE; that if it's legal to do so in any particular local jurisdiction for someone to have an abortion, then that's the end of the matter. If you wish to kill your progeny, that's your business because everyone who desires this outcome will eventually eliminate their genes from the gene pool.

Further:

I BELIEVE; that the 4th Amendment includes abortion under the "persons, ..., papers and effects" clause. I believe that the SCOTUS got it wrong in Roe v Wade AND in Dobbs. However, my belief is not what the SCOTUS says the law is/isn't. I stand for and support the law, not my beliefs.


Finally, because it's tangent to my position on abortion:

I ALSO BELIEVE; that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from legislating in the area of arms for any reason or in any capacity.

*****
Debate:

In general the flaw in the pro abortion argument is that those who are pro abortion usually set out different rules for abortion than they do for guns because they don't believe that people should have guns but do believe that people should be able to have abortions.

The results are exactly reversed for the pro-gun/anti-abortion group for the same basic flaw.

What the arguments from both sides all come down to is a desire to control others based on personal moral values. Someone believes A, everyone must comply or else. A different person believes B, everyone must comply or else.

That's not the way it's supposed to work in a free society. However, given that humans are idiots, that's what we have because people cannot see past their own biases and inadequacies. Instead they create false dichotomies as justifications for spreading their moral values under threat of force against "unbelievers." They support this with "half truths" designed to promote their personal values as if those were the only facts.

Neither side in the abortion/gun debate is being honest. Not with you, not with me, not with themselves. Anyone who believes they are, is in league with the dishonesty because they support the core value at a level akin to religious zealotry.

This dishonesty extends beyond abortion and guns. It also infects society in the areas of immigration, DJT, Covid, "misinformation"/censorship, and many other issues as well. It is all the same - someone believes A and everyone MUST comply or else. Even if there are other factors and beliefs involved, those are disregarded because the personal moral values justify the lies and dishonesty.



Thus, the direct answer to your question is; yes, if a local jurisdiction believes abortion should be allowed, while a neighboring jurisdiction believes it shouldn't, then those 2 sets of rules are in harmony because that's what the SCOTUS says the law is. Those who believe A instead of B, and vice versa, are free to relocate to the place which mirrors their beliefs.

The expanded argument is that when it comes to guns, the SCOTUS has also spoken and those who disbelieve aren't free to create a division based on local values. This is because the SCOTUS has determined what the law is/isn't.

Neither position encompasses my personal beliefs other than asserting that I support the law. How I do so is personal and you are free to choose a different way as long as your choice doesn't limit/affect mine.

 

[AlexBailey]

Ok, let's begin with my actual position on abortion so you don't misunderstand. This also comes with a caveat that the issue is extremely complex and cannot be comprehensively covered in depth in one post on the internet by anyone. If anyone wishes to nitpick words and sentences rather than the concepts under discussion, please go play stupid troll elsewhere.

So, first:

I BELIEVE; that if it's legal to do so in any particular local jurisdiction for someone to have an abortion, then that's the end of the matter. If you wish to kill your progeny, that's your business because everyone who desires this outcome will eventually eliminate their genes from the gene pool.

Further:

I BELIEVE; that the 4th Amendment includes abortion under the "persons, ..., papers and effects" clause. I believe that the SCOTUS got it wrong in Roe v Wade AND in Dobbs. However, my belief is not what the SCOTUS says the law is/isn't. I stand for and support the law, not my beliefs.


Finally, because it's tangent to my position on abortion:

I ALSO BELIEVE; that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from legislating in the area of arms for any reason or in any capacity.

*****
Debate:

In general the flaw in the pro abortion argument is that those who are pro abortion usually set out different rules for abortion than they do for guns because they don't believe that people should have guns but do believe that people should be able to have abortions.

The results are exactly reversed for the pro-gun/anti-abortion group for the same basic flaw.

What the arguments from both sides all come down to is a desire to control others based on personal moral values. Someone believes A, everyone must comply or else. A different person believes B, everyone must comply or else.

That's not the way it's supposed to work in a free society. However, given that humans are idiots, that's what we have because people cannot see past their own biases and inadequacies. Instead they create false dichotomies as justifications for spreading their moral values under threat of force against "unbelievers." They support this with "half truths" designed to promote their personal values as if those were the only facts.

Neither side in the abortion/gun debate is being honest. Not with you, not with me, not with themselves. Anyone who believes they are, is in league with the dishonesty because they support the core value at a level akin to religious zealotry.

This dishonesty extends beyond abortion and guns. It also infects society in the areas of immigration, DJT, Covid, "misinformation"/censorship, and many other issues as well. It is all the same - someone believes A and everyone MUST comply or else. Even if there are other factors and beliefs involved, those are disregarded because the personal moral values justify the lies and dishonesty.



Thus, the direct answer to your question is; yes, if a local jurisdiction believes abortion should be allowed, while a neighboring jurisdiction believes it shouldn't, then those 2 sets of rules are in harmony because that's what the SCOTUS says the law is. Those who believe A instead of B, and vice versa, are free to relocate to the place which mirrors their beliefs.

The expanded argument is that when it comes to guns, the SCOTUS has also spoken and those who disbelieve aren't free to create a division based on local values. This is because the SCOTUS has determined what the law is/isn't.

Neither position encompasses my personal beliefs other than asserting that I support the law. How I do so is personal and you are free to choose a different way as long as your choice doesn't limit/affect mine.

I sincerely thank you for making a well reasoned and stated comment.

A appreciate that both abortion and the second amendment are extremely complex issues which are supported and opposed with equal measures of zealotry. I’d like to point out that the way the SCOTUS has handled these issues is a reflection of that complexity.

In the example of the second amendment it’s important to acknowledge (which you have) that the SCOTUS does not embrace the strictest possible stance for the sake of the wellbeing of the public. There are many “arms” which have had their access “infringed” for purpose of public safety. I doubt that any SC Justice would argue for complete and free access to any and all “arms” for any and all persons. Therefore what some 2a zealots might consider a sacrosanct “right” is already legally recognized to have exceptions. It has been determined to be, and by precedent is, a negotiable issue. Nuclear weapons, firearms, and swords are all arms yet none are specifically mentioned in the 2a.


Abortion is even more legally and ethically complex. Since there are cases where abortion is lifesaving to the pregnant woman, outlawing all abortions would be a death sentence for some citizens, and arguing that fetuses are citizens is not a clear case, and even if it was, in some cases it would come to a judgement call of whose life is more important, the pregnant woman or the fetus. In any case, in order for law enforcement to get involved requires government intervention in the medical care of some citizens which conflicts with other constitutional rights.

Deciding these issues has subjective elements that can and are influenced by religion, politics, and personal feelings of the judges.

Do you disagree?

 

[HisArpy]

... Deciding these issues has subjective elements that can and are influenced by religion, politics, and personal feelings of the judges.

Do you disagree?

I do disagree.

The law isn't there for people to "interpret" based on their personal feelings and beliefs.

For example; murder isn't allowable because someone's feelings might be hurt if the bad guy gets the electric chair. Nor is rape, robbery, abuse, DUI, etc.

It's also obvious that you misunderstand that the 2nd Amendment isn't a list of what's "allowed." It's a prohibition against the government and contains an "absolute command" as part of that prohibition. That the 2nd only contains the word "arms" as the thing government can't get involved in should tell most people that it includes EVERYTHING not just the things some people feel should be "allowed."

The "nuclear weapons" argument is a red herring. Just as "free speech" doesn't mean "free from consequences", owning weapons like nuclear missiles would mean that the possessor would be liable for every harm those weapons caused even while the weapons are "stored." Just as stored ammo would make the possessor liable if that stored ammo caused someone harm. Just as an accidental shooting also makes the shooter liable regardless of how that shooting happened, owning arms capable of mass death isn't free from the consequences from misuse/negligence.

There's also the "Dangerous and Unusual" limitation that the court created from whole cloth but which is now seemingly a part of an allowable infringement. As are "sensitive places." (Which could be justified by traditional limits on where arms could be born such as courthouses and the like.) D and U will eventually be litigated and whether it survives that litigation is 50/50.

Outlawing abortion entirely is possible. In cases where someone is going to die if an abortion can't be performed, that would have to be decided on a case by case judgment call based on facts rather than feelings/beliefs. So, even with a complete ban on abortion, there is still a possibility that a life saving abortion could be performed.

You cannot say that for every abortion. Which means that the pro-abortion crowd is conflating a rare situation as an every-day thing. Which is just not the case.

The argument for a total ban on abortion fails as well for those same reasons because the case-by-case determination would be based on specific facts for a specific person rather than a wholesale determination made without any specific facts at all. The justification is that a total ban saves lives. However, that's a rationale not a legal argument because pregnancy itself carries the risk of death to the mother even with modern medicine and technology. Thus, the argument fails because it's possible that the ban will cost lives rather than save them.

In the end, both arguments (pro and con) aren't being properly made. Instead the differing sides are relying on emotional responses to bolster their positions. Which is not a proper basis for a law.

Which is also why the emotional outpouring after mass shootings is both appealing and disgusting at the same time. As are the prayer vigils held outside family planning centers.

 

[AlexBailey]

Okay….

So armed drones and submachine guns for everyone, government doctors tracking women’s menstural cycles.

Screw the conflicts and hazards, we need the letter of the law to be as liberal as possible for guns and as strict as possible for women?

 

[phrodeau]

Okay….

So armed drones and submachine guns for everyone, government doctors tracking women’s menstural cycles.

Screw the conflicts and hazards, we need the letter of the law to be as liberal as possible for guns and as strict as possible for women?

Those decisions should be made by local authorities, so we need to see a board in every town deciding who may get an abortion, and who may get a gun.

 

[AlexBailey]

Okay….

So armed drones and submachine guns for everyone, government doctors tracking women’s menstural cycles.

Screw the conflicts and hazards, we need the letter of the law to be as liberal as possible for guns and as strict as possible for women?

It’s so unfortunate that a planet of people have such a hard time getting along.

 

[HisArpy]

Okay….

So armed drones and submachine guns for everyone, government doctors tracking women’s menstural cycles.

Screw the conflicts and hazards, we need the letter of the law to be as liberal as possible for guns and as strict as possible for women?

If you want to have a reasoned discussion, then this sort of response should be deleted before it's written. Seriously, all you did here was swap the words "nuclear missiles" for "drones and submachine guns." With the same failed understanding that you aren't "allowed by the government" to have them, you have a Right to keep and bear them and the government is prohibited from preventing it.

The gov doctors and menstrual cycles thing would be an invasion of privacy and a violation of the 4th Amendment. Which again only shows that you misunderstand the limitations on government contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It also shows that you act from emotion rather than reason because you put your personal feelings ahead of the law and other people's beliefs.

The last part is the worst of the worst. Fundamentally, the Right to Keep and Bear arms is enumerated in the US Constitution. It is the law of the land and applicable to all the States. The US Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights in MacDonald v. Chicago. Thus, it is equal to the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment and so on.

The US Supreme Court has also said that there is no US Constitutional right to an abortion. Thus, it is not equal to any enumerated Right and is subject to differing levels of applicability depending on local jurisdiction and law. It is not an enumerated Right and is not protected against infringement which enumerated Rights are.

 

[HisArpy]

It’s so unfortunate that a planet of people have such a hard time getting along.

The reason for this is because you aren't taught what "is", you're taught what your teacher wants to believe and what they want you to believe as well. Liberal teachers teach liberal concepts and ideas. Conservative teachers teach conservative concepts and ideas. Both method are WRONG because they spring from a desire to disseminate ideology rather than knowledge.

The Constitution creates the government. It also shackles the government it creates to the limitations of power and exercise of authority which are specifically expressed in the creating document. If government goes outside those expressed boundaries, it acts illegally. It doesn't matter if you believe those acts are for a good reason, if there is no authority for the government to do them they are illegal, without lawful power to enforce, and without effect. They are, in effect, the theft of power, authority, and privileges held solely by the people.

When that theft is backed up by the use of force via the military or police, that's called tyranny. When the theft is supported by a segment of the people and backed by force of government, it's called a coup.

 

[phrodeau]

I see. So since the Constitution does not enumerate equal rights for women, then women do not get equal rights.

 

[AlexBailey]

The reason for this is because you aren't taught what "is", you're taught what your teacher wants to believe and what they want you to believe as well. Liberal teachers teach liberal concepts and ideas. Conservative teachers teach conservative concepts and ideas. Both method are WRONG because they spring from a desire to disseminate ideology rather than knowledge.

The Constitution creates the government. It also shackles the government it creates to the limitations of power and exercise of authority which are specifically expressed in the creating document. If government goes outside those expressed boundaries, it acts illegally. It doesn't matter if you believe those acts are for a good reason, if there is no authority for the government to do them they are illegal, without lawful power to enforce, and without effect. They are, in effect, the theft of power, authority, and privileges held solely by the people.

When that theft is backed up by the use of force via the military or police, that's called tyranny. When the theft is supported by a segment of the people and backed by force of government, it's called a coup.

As you have pointed out, the power, authority, and privileges are supposed to be held by the people. The constitution creates the government, including creating the means for the people to make changes .
Since the majority of citizens want some forms of arms controls, if it courts rule in favor of removing all arms “infringements” there will be an increasing pressure to amend parts of the 2a, and since there are legal pathways to do this it will probably come to pass someday.

Maybe it’s a good thing that the SCOTUS is forcing these issues to be properly addressed rather than skirting the law with dubious fixes.

While you claim that the statements of intent made in the preamble are not actionable, they do have meaning and the founders provided mechanisms for change that could better address intentions such as ‘promoting the general welfare.’

Making the changes that the majority of the population wants will have to come slowly through the democratic process as representatives are chosen by the majorities within their jurisdictions.

The desire for change exists among the majority of citizens, the mechanism for change exists, and while a jury may require unanimity, elections do not.

Time will tell, and if you are a man of your convictions you will fully embrace any new properly formed amendments and legislation.

 

[AlexBailey]

I see. So since the Constitution does not enumerate equal rights for women, then women do not get equal rights.

Correct. Since the constitution was written over 200 years ago you need to go back to the values of the time when ‘women’ were not considered to be part of “we the people.”

 

[HisArpy]

As you have pointed out, the power, authority, and privileges are supposed to be held by the people. The constitution creates the government, including creating the means for the people to make changes .
Since the majority of citizens want some forms of arms controls, if it courts rule in favor of removing all arms “infringements” there will be an increasing pressure to amend parts of the 2a, and since there are legal pathways to do this it will probably come to pass someday.

Maybe it’s a good thing that the SCOTUS is forcing these issues to be properly addressed rather than skirting the law with dubious fixes.

While you claim that the statements of intent made in the preamble are not actionable, they do have meaning and the founders provided mechanisms for change that could better address intentions such as ‘promoting the general welfare.’

Making the changes that the majority of the population wants will have to come slowly through the democratic process as representatives are chosen by the majorities within their jurisdictions.

The desire for change exists among the majority of citizens, the mechanism for change exists, and while a jury may require unanimity, elections do not.

Time will tell, and if you are a man of your convictions you will fully embrace any new properly formed amendments and legislation.

The method of changing the Constitution is written into the Constitution. That method doesn't include writing illegal laws and then having the courts rubber stamp them because a segment of the population approves of the illegal laws.

If you want to change the Right to Keep and Bear arms, write a bill to amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights and get it ratified by 38 States.

Same deal with abortion. If you want to include it in the Constitution, write a bill and get it ratified.

Otherwise you're engaging in that illegal usurpation of power/authority thing I mentioned.

 

[AlexBailey]

The method of changing the Constitution is written into the Constitution. That method doesn't include writing illegal laws and then having the courts rubber stamp them because a segment of the population approves of the illegal laws.

If you want to change the Right to Keep and Bear arms, write a bill to amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights and get it ratified by 38 States.

Same deal with abortion. If you want to include it in the Constitution, write a bill and get it ratified.

Otherwise you're engaging in that illegal usurpation of power/authority thing I mentioned.

Yeah. The current SCOTUS overturning what the majority of citizens consider reasonable legislation is going to make amending the Constitution a more necessary and pressing issue.

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah. The current SCOTUS overturning what the majority of citizens consider reasonable legislation is going to make amending the Constitution a more necessary and pressing issue.

What you want isn't the law. It also isn't a Constitutional Right. If what you want is for your ideas and beliefs to be the law of the land and enshrined in the Constitution, then follow the procedures to amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Write the bill to amend and get it ratified. Good luck with that.

 

[HisArpy]

I think it's also necessary to add that while you believe your position on abortion and guns is the "right" one, the fact that the majority of society as a whole doesn't agree with you ought to indicate that maybe you need to reexamine your underlying premises. After all, if democracy means that the majority rules, then your ideas aren't very democratic.

Which, when examined, becomes apparent as the totalitarianism inherent in them is rather obvious.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yeah. The current SCOTUS overturning what the majority of citizens consider reasonable legislation is going to make amending the Constitution a more necessary and pressing issue.

Is your comment in regards to abortion?

 

[oggbashan]

US Constitution, a regulated militia and criminals.

I suggest that the gun law in the Constitution didn't bar criminals from owning guns because before the American revolution, the British authorities would have classed any Amercan patriot carrying a gun to be a criminal.

In the UK now, owning certain types of weapons e.g. hand guns is criminal.