LogFAQs > #896140927

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 161: Elephants On Parade
Suprak the Stud 02/15/18 1:46:26 PM #440:	Nelson_Mandela posted... Jakyl25 posted... Nelson_Mandela posted... We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution I can't think of a single other hot button issue that is directly spelled out in the Constitution, but debate rages anyway. I am actually not sure where I stand on gun control, to be 100% honest. Part of me is against it (I've grown up with guns and I think my dad was taking me to the firing range by the time I was ten), but I at least understand the argument for it. BUT Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We have laws limiting almost all of those thing. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf We already have laws in place regarding the right to bear arms (I can't own weaponized flu strains because I want them). You can't even buy automatic weapons legally. So I am confused why, if the left wants to push it to "slightly more restricted" people on the right suddenly go "whoa what about the constitution buddy" as if we don't ALREADY have laws limiting the vast majority of the amendments in the constitution. Is the ban on automatic weapons tyranny? I see very few on the right arguing in favor of reversing the ban on this sort of thing (which, honestly, good, I'm not criticizing them and think this is a sensible approach). But then when the left tries to do anything and the right goes "but muh constitution says..." it feels disingenuous. A better argument would be "I think the restrictions we have in place are now enough and do not want to go any further for x,y,z reasons". --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:896140927] in Politics C... [t:76294453]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote> We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote </quote> Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution</quote> I can't think of a single other hot button issue that is directly spelled out in the Constitution, but debate rages anyway.</quote> I am actually not sure where I stand on gun control, to be 100% honest. Part of me is against it (I've grown up with guns and I think my dad was taking me to the firing range by the time I was ten), but I at least understand the argument for it. BUT <quote>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</quote> We have laws limiting almost all of those thing. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf We already have laws in place regarding the right to bear arms (I can't own weaponized flu strains because I want them). You can't even buy automatic weapons legally. So I am confused why, if the left wants to push it to "slightly more restricted" people on the right suddenly go "whoa what about the constitution buddy" as if we don't ALREADY have laws limiting the vast majority of the amendments in the constitution. Is the ban on automatic weapons tyranny? I see very few on the right arguing in favor of reversing the ban on this sort of thing (which, honestly, good, I'm not criticizing them and think this is a sensible approach). But then when the left tries to do anything and the right goes "but muh constitution says..." it feels disingenuous. A better argument would be "I think the restrictions we have in place are now enough and do not want to go any further for x,y,z reasons". --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1