Politics Official 2024 Presidential Election Thread

Absolutely.

 

What you call "proof" I call "conjecture". You were not there when the amendment was written. You cannot with any certainty divine their original intentions. I am not "refusing" to do anything but disagree with your opinion, along with those of the courts. Put different people on the bench and the opinions might change. But again, in my reading, the Second Amendment is highly contradictory and therefore open to any interpretation a Supreme Court may decide along the way, depending on the times and the political climate. What's "clear" to one person is gobbledygook to another person. There is a reason lawyers exist, ya know? Right now, at this moment your response is closest to "right". Tomorrow may well be a different story. But when you take such a hard line stance as you are taking, then NO real worthwhile change will ever happen because there is no room for compromise. Gun ownership is just another manifestation of personal insecurity (IMHO).

 

This would be like saying since we weren't there to witness species actually evolve over billions of years we can't actually know that evolution is a true phenomenon.

We know it exists because there are markers that show it exists. We have collected and stored data that shows species unmistakably evolve.

Just like I have shared a few examples that we have on record which shows the term "well regulated" was commonly used at the time of writing in a way that makes the second amendment make perfect sense. And completely removes any conflict with any other part of the second amendment, and in fact, doesn't conflict with any other part of the Constitution as a whole. Rather, works with the rest of the Constitution, including the first, fourth, and 14th amendments (as well as others).

True. What I've shared here is my opinion. And yes, as I have said above, bias can impact the court's rulings.

My point is that for us to determine that the authors of the Bill of Rights were fools who wrote contradictory gibberish requires us to take a leap of faith which seems unsupported by evidence. It seems to make more sense for us to interpret their carefully and painstakingly written words and ideas in a manner that they would make sense at the time of writing.

The second amendment is very short and very concise. It takes definite mental gymnastics to misconstrue the very clear intention, in my opinion.

If you didn't hold the opinion that you just shared on gun ownership, I do not believe that you would be so resistant to understanding the text of the second amendment.

And I do not believe that any unbiased court will determine the text of the second amendment means anything other than what I have described. I do believe that it may be amended.

Though I do not know how we can amend it and still protect the rights that I firmly believe the authors intended.

 

Agreed

 

Harris is purportedly interviewing the top three candidates today and will announce her VP pick at a big rally on Tuesday.

 

As we all take political tall tales seriously in a banana republic.

 

As I've already said, I don't believe that means that at all. A biased Court will interpret anything any way they want.

It's our responsibility to make sure that we call them on it.

Look at the motives in the backgrounds of the judges who have ruled on it

They're very clear in the writing of the Constitution that their intention was to restrict the ability of the government to infringe upon the rights of the people. And that is the lens that I believe we should read the Constitution with.

Anything else leads to a steady erosion of individual rights until we reach autocratic rule.

 

I am truly sorry for putting it this way, but the "mental gymnastics" you are using to support your opinion puts me in mind of the way the Republican Party is currently using mental gymnastics to justify pretty much anything they do. My personal opinion on gun ownership has nothing to do with my "resistance". I look at a couple of written sentences and interpret them according to my understanding of the English language. They are entirely open to interpretation according to the needs of the time. Period. Amen. Unfettered and unrestricted gun ownership in the 21st Century is the absolute definition of pure insanity. All you have to do is look at other "civilized" or "First World" countries and their approaches to gun ownership to understand just how stupid and clueless America is about firearms. I'm sick and tired of hearing about "our founder's intent". They are dead and gone. Voices from another time and age. Apples to oranges. What matters is the needs and priorities of today. And unfettered gun ownership is NOT one of those needs and priorities. Again, I am not being "resistant". I'm just being true to my understanding the English language.

 

Polls are at best snapshot. What is significant is not this or that number but trend. Since Harris became presumptive nominee every poll has moved in her direction. I don't know of a single poll in any state that has moved to Trump.

Never underestimate the power of a woman.

 

Thank you, I do not take offense. I appreciate the dialogue.

Never once have I suggested we should have unfettered or unrestricted gun ownership. I maintain that's not what the second amendment suggests either. This is what is called a straw man.

I didn't say America is in a good place with firearms or violence. In fact I have suggested alternative laws and methods that have been used in other first world countries with guns, who have lower violent crime rates than countries even without guns (or very few guns). So this would be another straw man.

By "mental gymnastics" do you mean looking at the words, verifying what they mean currently and historically, and sharing that knowledge on a public forum?

Do you find that those words mean something else? Can you support that with any evidence?

Are there any other amendments that restrict the rights of individuals?

Does it make more sense to you that we should interpret the terminology in the only way that we would have to assume the authors of the Constitution wrote a couple of sentences of gibberish as the second amendment, or do you think it makes more sense to interpret the words in a way commonly used at the time of writing that makes perfect sense in the context in which they were written?

Please explain what part of my logic is flawed to the point of being considered "mental gymnastics"?

Once again, we can change these documents. But there doesn't seem to be any will to do so.

*Edit* And again, we have ways to change this. We can update the Constitution if that is deemed necessary.