Breaking News: SCOTUS takes first 2nd Amendment case since Bruen

[AlexanderA]

That's not how it works. Humans have free choice. Once some humans figure out how to get control over other humans they do all kinds of things to them that are contrary to the Creator's wishes. The controlled humans still have free choice to rise up, defend themselves, and reclaim their rights.

I agree completely that humans have free choice. That is, some humans have the choice to trample gun rights, while other humans have the choice to uphold them. That being the case, "the Creator's wishes" (however those are defined, which is a murky topic in itself) are irrelevant, given that the Creator is either unable or unwilling to step in directly. My whole point is that we are left to our own devices.

Rights are not "inalienable" when they in fact can be trampled. Especially not gun rights, when the United States is about the only place in the world where they are officially recognized. If gun rights were divinely ordained, you would think that at least a majority of other countries would agree.

 

[Poper]

Yep, it's unfortunate that the first lawsuit filed in Vermont against the high capacity magazine ban was filed on behalf of a self proclaimed white supremacist. It isn't good optics, irrespective of right or wrong upholding the constitution should always be first and foremost even if the subject in the case is human crap...

I bristle at statements like this in a discussion of the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not you agree with the "optics," his "self proclamation", his sex, religion or national origin, the fellow is ONE OF THE PEOPLE and he has all of THE PEOPLE'S rights, privaledges and responsibilities until it has been adjudicated otherwise.

Period.

---

 

[Poper]

Wow, I didn't know that.

~fellow Arizonan

Key words: "under investigation".
Not convicted. Still presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Freedom is not necessarily risk free.

 

[Poper]

If gun rights were divinely ordained, you would think that at least a majority of other countries would agree.

Not really. Most countries are ruled by dictators or tyrants of some sort or another. Few other nations were founded with a constitution written by the most brilliant and most honest citizens of that country. Most WERE created by individuals or factions with SELF-INTEREST above all else and foremost in mind.
Some exeptions that immediately come to mind: Switzerland, Australia, Israel and there are others, of course.

JMHO, of course.

 

[DustyGmt]

I bristle at statements like this in a discussion of the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not you agree with the "optics," his "self proclamation", his sex, religion or national origin, the fellow is ONE OF THE PEOPLE and he has all of THE PEOPLE'S rights, privaledges and responsibilities until it has been adjudicated otherwise.

Period.

---

Understood and agreed. I said as much, I was making a comment on the public perception and the fact that it isn't real endearing when the headline is "white supremacist files suit against newly passed magazine restriction law". It doesn't draw many of the "people" to our corner as opposed to maybe "father of two who fought off 3 in home invasion files suit against new magazine restrictions" as a for instance.... but I agree. Public perception shouldn't matter in applying law and following the constitution. But it seems to.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I agree completely that humans have free choice. That is, some humans have the choice to trample gun rights, while other humans have the choice to uphold them. That being the case, "the Creator's wishes" (however those are defined, which is a murky topic in itself) are irrelevant, given that the Creator is either unable or unwilling to step in directly. My whole point is that we are left to our own devices.

Rights are not "inalienable" when they in fact can be trampled. Especially not gun rights, when the United States is about the only place in the world where they are officially recognized. If gun rights were divinely ordained, you would think that at least a majority of other countries would agree.

Governments prohibit all kinds of religiously-mandated behavior and conversely mandate all kinds of behavior that violates the precepts of the religions professed by their citizens. That doesn't change the religious doctrines themselves. It's up to the practitioners to decide whether they want to follow their religion or follow the government.

 

[old lady new shooter]

SCOTUS may even choose to rule on the constitutionality of gun possession disability for non-violent, versus violent felony convictions.

I remember reading that Justice Barrett once raised that question.

 

[Poper]

Understood and agreed. I said as much, I was making a comment on the public perception and the fact that it isn't real endearing when the headline is "white supremacist files suit against newly passed magazine restriction law". It doesn't draw many of the "people" to our corner as opposed to maybe "father of two who fought off 3 in home invasion files suit against new magazine restrictions" as a for instance.... but I agree. Public perception shouldn't matter in applying law and following the constitution. But it seems to.

We have no control over the words and terms the antis' will use to demonize those who oppose them. We also do not need to use those same terms at all. Period.
Once a term loses its sting, they find or make up another one to take its place. Kinda like whack-a-mole except the antis' purpose is pure evil. Whenever there is as choice, I choose freedom. Even if that freedom offends people on my side of the issue.