Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by hso, Jul 8, 2022.
A surprising exception to the usual course of events. You can't design policy around a one-off situation. On the other hand, you can design policy to respond to a trend.
The term outlier applies in that case.
No, there's a logic to it--you can politically disenfranchise people at the ends of an age range far easier than any "in the middle" group. What are they going to do, vote for/against "you" in even smaller numbers than they do now?
The question then becomes, does that then mean, maybe 21-25 will be the next target?
This is all entirely political, and that's the true tragedy of it. It's cloaked in Public Good and every manner of societal benefit.
Yep, it is indeed tragic, and to further the tragedy I'm sure they would take such action knowing darn well that there is no public good or societal benefit from it.
“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
― Gideon J. Tucker
tags: government, humor, politics
Reconstruction was an abject failure.
The majority of those over 21 are responsible enough to own a gun but a tiny minority are not. Should they also suffer more restrictions for the promise of a more safe society?
Limit their free speech to 25, put back in place you have to own property, that will eliminate a great many liberals, especially in big cities.
Our 3a rights have been infringed upon more than enough. Our fou design wrote that congress. states, shall pass any law infringing on the right of free "men", politically incorrect, read people to keep and bear arms.
I'm trying to parse this, but so far without success.
3rd Amendment? Has the quartering of troops in private houses been a problem lately?
That is an extreme misreading of history.
Reconstruction provided the framework to force 3 constitutional amendments through that would never have passed otherwise.
Actually that came up in the extended NG posting to DC, where the guardsmen were being housed in motels (privately owned structures) without compensation.
The media hid that one really well! This is the first I've heard of that one.
And those amendments had little to no effect for about a century.
Vagrancy laws allowed southern governments to force unemployed former slaves back to work on plantations. The sharecropping labor/economic system (even though it applied to both poor blacks and poor whites) maintained slave-like conditions until WWII. African Americans could not reasonable expect to vote until after the 1960s. Yes, Reconstruction allowed African Americans to serve in elected positions in the South in the aftermath of the Civil War, when the US Army ended its occupation, by about 1877, Reconstruction completely collapsed.
The point I'm making, and to apply it the 2A issue and community, is that kind of change can't come from the top down. As someone stated at the beginning of this discussion, that kind of change has to come from the bottom up by winning popular support and changing voters' attitudes. Much like racist attitudes int he south didn't end at the passing of the Reconstruction amendments, anti 2A attitudes (and every attempt of legal trickery to limit the 2A) will not end just because the Supreme Court says so. Ultimately, the make up of the Supreme Court will change, and it will over rule itself-as we have seen repeatedly through its history. (Brown reversed Plessy, Dobbs reversed Roe, etc.; what will be the case that reverses Bruen?)
I believe that according to the wording of the 3rd Amendment, it has to be a residence ("house"). Business property, such as a motel or a farmer's barn, would be OK. But there has to be compensation for the "taking," under the 5th Amendment.
There's a paucity of 3rd Amendment cases. The Founders were thinking retrospectively, about what the Brits had been doing before and during the Revolutionary War.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
That's certainly true.
And the Crown had been deliberately quartering troops in citizens' houses to deprive them of goods and wealth.
There's historical evidence that "house" in the context of the 3rd would have included any real estate in private ownership. Much as "quartering" included feeding the troops as well as sheltering them. So, barns & outbuildings were no-go, too.
In the DC situation, the motel owners were having to turn down pre-paid Reservations at higher Tourist Season rates to retain the Guardsmen. Who were also going through the vending machine stock at significantly higher rates than "typical traffic." The "free breakfast" was bankrupting the innkeepers, too.
So am I. One of my Senators voted for the last bill. Sen Blunt is showing his true colors now that he is not running for re-election.
They know it's not going anywhere. This effort is just to get themselves on the record as being against the guns. Look at the list of co-sponsors. They're all from deep-blue districts. The Dems from marginal districts (such as Reps. Spanberger and Luria from Virginia) are not included.
Separate names with a comma.