Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 28206
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This was kind of inevitable.
The second amendment was nothing to do with self defense or hunting.
It gave the right to every American to own weapons of war in case they need to go to war.
So a huge industry builds up selling weapons of war to private citizens. They pay for lobbyists who pay for politicians.
The politicians select the supreme court who get to work with citizens united and lift any remaining regs on the influence of industry.
So now the cash is really flowing and it's impossible to stop the inevitable stacking of the SC.
Next up, guns and abortion.
It's worth remembering that Biden can extend the supreme court. but then each party will likely just extend it to suit themselves and it will eventually just replace the senate but with lifetime appointments. Edging closer to dictatorship controlled by big business.
Kinda just waffling on now
but it's incredibly sad to watch the whole system sleep walk in to disaster.
 
Horrid decision. Breyer absolutely annihilates Thomas, if you read it. To greatly oversimplify, what Breyer is saying is that the Tenth Amendment should be read as meaning that the proper place for interpreting what the Second Amendment means is at the state legislature level. This is more or less the same reasoning that Alito is likely to use to overturn Roe - which sets up a run at Griswold, HIPAA and a host of other protections. At best the right is being disingenuous by making a states' rights argument in Dobbs, but not Bruen.

Breyer's take is fundamentally a risks argument. Breyer would hold that states are by nature different, possessing different needs, and that their democratically elected legislatures should therefore determine what risks the governed population is willing to tolerate with respect to guns. (This is how we regulate an awful lot of stuff, by the way.) By contrast, (fertile) women are inherently the same with respect to that particular issue, and therefore they are the people best suited to determine what risks they are willing to run with respect to their own bodies.

It's hard to reasonably dispute either of Breyer's positions while simultaneously holding that you believe in democratic governance and the Constitution. The only rational out on either issue IMO is to claim that abortion is murder, and the science on that is murky indeed. Otherwise, Roe is just a logical extension of Griswold.
 
Playing the Devil's Advocate. As I've said a huge % of Americans feel their 2nd Ammendment rights are extremely important to them. So, if we are saying - general consensus - that stricter gun control measures will NOT stop mass killings / shootings, do they have a valid point in saying that why implement these measures if those asking for these measures to be brought in, concede the mass killings will carry on.

Someone accused me of " not knowing America " might I strongly suggest that if people genuinely believe more gun control measures will be brought in, they are deluded. It just isn't going to happen, ever.
Ahem...lol, someone doesn't "know America"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top