Politics Official 2024 Presidential Election Thread

You seem to consider "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed upon" to be mutually exclusive and unrelated. Took me some serious mental gymnastics to try and get there myself. and then I saw how incongruous it was. Personally, it's telling me there is plenty of room to put some safeguards in place with just those two phrases. And I'm not talking about other amendments, though the First Amendment has certainly taken a beating of late. And fortunately that pesky 21st Amendment is no longer around. But yes, pretty much any amendment can be twisted to restrict the rights of individuals depending on who is in office. Project 2025 springs to mind. But then, that pretty much suspends the Constitution......

 

"Well regulated militia" literally means a capable group of civilians who can form infantry as needed.

Of course there's room for safeguards. The 14th amendment allows for that.

These problems are caused by criminals and violent people. They aren't caused by law abiding civilians. The 14th amendment allows us to restrict the rights of people based on due process of the law.

"Shall not be infringed" only protects people who aren't restricted by due process of the law. As covered in the 14th amendment.

 

Cats don't need them.

 

I was raised in a large all Dem, straight ticket, strong union family. Im one of a few that were not union but supports Unions, for the most part. We all, including girls and women, hunted game to provide a source of food. All my kids and even good percentage of grandkids now hunt, and they all are responsible gun owners. Some of them shoot recreational at local gun clubs and some have carry permits. Most are liberal democrats except a couple independents that lean left, including me, now. Some of my younger grandkids have already expressed they are not interested in hunting or owning a firearm, which is cool, others want too try, which is fine too.

 

Nope. I agree with the amendment as it was written and according to what the terminology meant at the time they wrote it.

I think they did an incredible job writing it to stand the test of time and to be updated as other relevant amendments are updated.

It is only confusing if you are trying not to understand it.

Again, I completely understand if you disagree with what it says and want the amendment updated. That is an understandable take and something we can debate as well.

 

I have been told serious hunters are responsible gun owners. They don't parade through the streets with guns strapped to their crotches. They understand guns are lethal weapons and not symbols of political fealty.
No hunters in my family since Jewish law forbids. But I have no problem with people who get food that way.
I remember Buck Williams who grew up in a family of dirt poor sharecroppers and the only meat they saw was what the men hunted.
Very different from a person with a hardware store of screws loose buying 50 guns.

 

When did I say any judges are unbiased? Pretty sure I said bias exists on both sides.

However nobody was banning law abiding people from owning guns until that time frame so there was never a challenge to rule on.

 

Nah, probably not. I doubt there are many unbiased people on either side.

The second amendment isn't necessarily set up to be opposed to gun control.

 

Yeah, I guess you're correct if you're looking back to 1939 in United States v. Miller, in which The Supreme Court ruled that short barreled shotguns are not protected under the second amendment and that the "militia" is all able-bodied male citizens, who can be expected to show up when needed, armed with their own weapons, supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time...

 

No. The rulings make sense. Sawed off shotguns aren't necessary or commonly used infantry weapons. And the description of the militia makes perfect sense (though obviously opened up to include women since that ruling).

The 2008 ruling kind of confirmed it... But it also kinda had to hear the case since there was starting to be a trend of states challenging the 2nd amendment.

 

Trump campaign spokescultist called Harris and Democrats anti-Semitic because they didn't pick Shapiro.

Governor Walz got glowing recommendation from Israeli consul general for Midwest. As well as Jewish media.

 

Of course he is. And Biden is Catholic but idiot claims Catholics are being horribly persecuted. And when it looked like Harris would pick Shapiro unleashed "war on Christmas " bullshit.

 

And Trump has an African-American...

You know what I'm talking about.